> you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. I didn't actually say that. I think many social media sites are net positives, like t

> you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. I didn't actually say that. I think many social media sites are net positives, like this one here. I think Facebook specifically is a net negative. > How did you come to that conclusion? Performing experiments on users' emotional state without their consent: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/every... Cambridge Analytica: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana... Facebook makes users feel worse about themselves: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23709009 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23709009 You get the idea. None of this is new. Some communities are more toxic than others. Some businesses are less ethical than others. I believe Facebook is an unethical business led by an unethical man making a product that is more harmful than good for most people. > Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them? I did not advocate that.