> If people start to understand the way Facebook is manipulating them, then there is also an opportunity for another platform, which does not do so, or to a les

> If people start to understand the way Facebook is manipulating them, then there is also an opportunity for another platform, which does not do so, or to a lesser extent. This assumes that a platform which behaves more ethically or is better aligned with the public good can actually compete financially with a company like Facebook. If Facebook financially benefits by not acting in the public interest, what makes you think a competitor who is acting in the public interest is able to compete? The whole point of the problem is that being a bad actor is incredibly profitable in this case. This statement: > nothing is preventing Facebook from doing this. Facebook is incentivized to act as you describe. I do not see it as Facebook's responsibility to act in another way. and this statement: > If people start to understand the way Facebook is manipulating them, then there is also an opportunity for another platform, which does not do so, or to a lesser extent. are inherently contradictory because Facebook is explicitly incentivized to misbehave, as you mention, meaning that any competitor trying to compete whilst acting in the public interest will never succeed. If acting in the public interest was profitable, Facebook would do it.