5 ms·

Facebook is not an imminent or obvious danger to the public; it is slow, subtle, but nonetheless clear. Much as the purveyors of leaded gasoline in the 1920s un

Facebook is not an imminent or obvious danger to the public; it is slow, subtle, but nonetheless clear. Much as the purveyors of leaded gasoline in the 1920s understood their products pose a risk to public health, Facebook is fully aware of the consequences of their product. We've all read countless articles, exposes, and leaks about the calculated human cost of this company, whether it is the rampant spread of misinformation, the operant conditioning designed to make their applications addictive, the abuses and leaks of the personal information of users, or the psychological trauma inflicted upon their armies of minimum-wage contracted moderators. Facebook shareholders have demonstrated no interest in curbing Facebook's negative externalities, as it is still yielding profit. Facebook is a de-facto monopoly with no direct competitors and ruinously unethical policies. If ever there were a case for government "interference", we're seeing it.

tathougies 7y ago
You compare facebook to leaded gasoline (I'm ignoring the fact that lead is an ancient compound that had been used for centuries prior without anyone noticing ill effect). However, this argument actually is an argument against legislating facebook out of existence. Leaded gasoline companies were simply regulated to minimize the externalities. The companies formerly selling gas still exist today. You identify the following risks of facebook. I list them below along with the obvious reason of why the government should not do anything about it. 1. rampant spread of misinformation -- Facebook does not publish this information. Individual people do. Now, you argue that facebook is a publisher. This is probably true. However, people (not companies perhaps) have a natural individual right to spread misinformation. If you legislate facebook out as a potential forum, then people still have this natural right, and have the right to use technology to accomplish this. Now, one could argue that, the internet, being privately owned, should be able to censor people. And indeed, the private owners of the internet ought to be allowed to do this, but there is a recent push in this country to make the internet a public utility, in which case there can be no regulation of the speech and publication allowed on it (unless it is already illegal). Misinformation is not illegal. I have a natural right to stand on the street and preach all sorts of ridiculous stuff. If the internet becomes public (and I think it probably should, because it is important today for civil rights), then this right cannot be restricted. 2. Addictive applications -- What do we legislate against next? Catchy music? Musicologists and theoreticians of music have been studying for millenia how to make music addictive and catchy. From Pythagoras to Ariana Grande, they are all making their music addictive. Should that be illegal too now? What exactly is wrong if people enjoy talking on the internet and decide to do that? 3. The abuses and leaks of personal information -- I can agree with this, but most companies do this (the government is also guilty of it). As far as we know, no company or entity is perfect in this regard. There should be legal guidelines and obvious neglect should be illegal, but the idea of making any company that loses data automatically put out of business is ridiculous. 4. psychological trauma inflicted upon armies of minimum wage contracted moderators -- I don't think there is any proven way of censoring obscene content without moderation. Neither facebook nor the government seem able to do this. I would also point out the hypocrisy in calling for censorship while at the same time claiming it is psychologically traumatic for censors.

tathougies 7y ago

You compare facebook to leaded gasoline (I'm ignoring the fact that lead is an ancient compound that had been used for centuries prior without anyone noticing ill effect). However, this argument actually is an argument against legislating facebook out of existence. Leaded gasoline companies were simply regulated to minimize the externalities. The companies formerly selling gas still exist today. You identify the following risks of facebook. I list them below along with the obvious reason of why the government should not do anything about it. 1. rampant spread of misinformation -- Facebook does not publish this information. Individual people do. Now, you argue that facebook is a publisher. This is probably true. However, people (not companies perhaps) have a natural individual right to spread misinformation. If you legislate facebook out as a potential forum, then people still have this natural right, and have the right to use technology to accomplish this. Now, one could argue that, the internet, being privately owned, should be able to censor people. And indeed, the private owners of the internet ought to be allowed to do this, but there is a recent push in this country to make the internet a public utility, in which case there can be no regulation of the speech and publication allowed on it (unless it is already illegal). Misinformation is not illegal. I have a natural right to stand on the street and preach all sorts of ridiculous stuff. If the internet becomes public (and I think it probably should, because it is important today for civil rights), then this right cannot be restricted. 2. Addictive applications -- What do we legislate against next? Catchy music? Musicologists and theoreticians of music have been studying for millenia how to make music addictive and catchy. From Pythagoras to Ariana Grande, they are all making their music addictive. Should that be illegal too now? What exactly is wrong if people enjoy talking on the internet and decide to do that? 3. The abuses and leaks of personal information -- I can agree with this, but most companies do this (the government is also guilty of it). As far as we know, no company or entity is perfect in this regard. There should be legal guidelines and obvious neglect should be illegal, but the idea of making any company that loses data automatically put out of business is ridiculous. 4. psychological trauma inflicted upon armies of minimum wage contracted moderators -- I don't think there is any proven way of censoring obscene content without moderation. Neither facebook nor the government seem able to do this. I would also point out the hypocrisy in calling for censorship while at the same time claiming it is psychologically traumatic for censors.