I have been thinking: there's a real opportunity to disrupt FaceBook, from the political side. It could gain traction in a way, and for a reason, among large gr

I have been thinking: there's a real opportunity to disrupt FaceBook, from the political side. It could gain traction in a way, and for a reason, among large groups of people who otherwise won't give a damn ('FaceBook competitor', yawn). I think a billboard and an advertising blitz that really put in people's faces, especially in the large blue cities that red staters hate so much, something like: Did you know that, when you're on FaceBook, you're giving money to the ad platform that elected Donald Trump? (*asterisk to Atlantic article here with quote to that effect) Join SocialBook to learn more. Then you could explain that there's a kind of default understanding that FaceBook is 'neutral,' but it's probably more accurate to think of FaceBook as an analogue, a cousin even, to Fox News. Its most popular site for engagement is Breitbart. As people have noted online, by various metrics, it favors Trump. And whether you agree or not, we are under no moral compulsion at all - none whatsoever - to support FaceBook. Not using it is, at worst, morally neutral. So if you oppose FaceBook's general effect on our society, why not do something that costs you no money and requires no real lifestyle change, but can radically improve your society's politics? Join SocialBook and get your friends too also, and as a principled stand, delete FaceBook. If nothing else, you'll start exerting some powerful pressure on FaceBook to change its policies in a direction it usually ignores, or else. And at best, you could help launch a powerful, healthy competitor. I should point out also: I don't see anything morally wrong in advocating for this. I do feel a duty to support people working towards building in general, and the economy in general. But do I have a specific moral duty to support FaceBook? Of course not. I think there are people here who object to people making commercial decisions for political reasons - but there's no moral imperative supporting this. For what it's worth, I don't see other companies taking this angle (say, Gab) as being in the wrong for that reason, either.