33 ms·
You have basically responded with an ancidote. Nearly all forms of media can and have contributed to violence. What evidence is there that Facebook is especiall
by megaman821 6y ago
You have basically responded with an ancidote. Nearly all forms of media can and have contributed to violence. What evidence is there that Facebook is especially noxious? Facebook isn't especially old, I remember a world pre-Facebook book and we still had things hate and violence in roughly the same proportion.
Furthermore did the lack of Facebook produce better outcomes for Muslims in China? The world is complicated place, the answer probably isn't as simple as "Facebook is bad".
- Barrin92 6y agoA case study of a nation-wide butchering of more than 24000 people is not an anecdote. If that's not enough then I'm not sure what sort of evidence it is you're looking for. And again, the issue is not the state of violence in the world or just Facebook, which is why I used 'social media' more generally at the end of my last post, it's the ways in which those companies uniquely contribute to violence. You don't need to be responsible for all violence in the world to be held accountable for the violence you cause. The fact that the world is complicated and violent doesn't absolve actors from their responsibility. Social media is quite unique in many ways. From mass bot-networks to influence campaigns that disguise themselves as bottom-up, to speed and virality that no other medium has, to lack of accountability and the ease at which information moves cross borders and enables nefarious states to conduct sabotage. And China is not a good example either. It's probably the prime example of a country that has used digital technologies, including social media, to build a dystopian surveillance network, including on Uyghurs, that could not otherwise function.