3 ms·
They are expressing their own opinion, and the comment clearly explains how they draw a parallel between Facebook and tobacco companies. Why do you need a link?
by 3gg 6y ago
They are expressing their own opinion, and the comment clearly explains how they draw a parallel between Facebook and tobacco companies. Why do you need a link?
Also, while Facebook may not directly kill people, the hate speech that it helps proliferate does have real consequences for real people. One such instance was in the Muslim genocide in Myanmar. Since you appear to like links a lot, here is one for you:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meghara/facebook-myanmar-rohingya-genocide https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meghara/facebook-myanma...
- petre 6y agoTheir ad delivery network is a vechicle for cyberbulying and hate speech and these things do kill people. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/business/hana-kimura-terrace-house.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/business/hana-kimura-terr... It's also interesting how Japan tries to quell cyberbullying, while regular bulying is rampant in this country with kids dropping out of school.
- 3gg 6y agoThanks for sharing, I was not aware of that story. The article you shared also repeats the idea that governments/society should impose stricter rules on how Facebook and other networks manage the content posted on their platforms, but that is where I digress a little. I think Facebook is indeed the problem, and also not part of the solution. Like I mentioned in another reply above, Facebook is a centralized, free-for-all network, one in which the random mob can harass individuals to their death like what seems to have happened in this case. But a social network does not have to be this way; Facebook is what it is because that is what works best for their ad revenue. They cannot address the endemic problems with their platform because those are at odds with their business model and would turn the platform upside down. The platform must remain "open" so that people can "connect" and "share", i.e. the company must do everything it can to keep users on the platform so that it can surveil them and target them with ads with the things it has learned, and hate and disinformation happen to be particularly good at keeping people "engaged". I then think it is naive for us to take these networks for granted and to continue pretending that we can simply delegate "content moderation" to corporations. Society must take control of its online discourse, and any "solution" that falls short of completely destroying the surveillance economy that powers these unethical corporations is insufficient in my opinion.
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoAll social media platforms are vectors for cyber-bullying and hate speech (whatever the hell that is). At some point, one needs to accept that people suck, and we can't blame communications platforms for their suckiness (much as we might like to).