Thanks 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 Fa

Thanks 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.