There has been a persistent campaign by people to get Facebook to take responsibility for the consequences of allowing this sort of thing - in this instance, th

There has been a persistent campaign by people to get Facebook to take responsibility for the consequences of allowing this sort of thing - in this instance, they have served the same role that certain radio stations did during the genocides in Rwanda. None of this is news to folks who have been grappling with the responsibilities of social media companies, the tension between the value of grass-roots organising (often positive, as we've seen in the likes of the Arab Spring, or Hong Kongers agitating for their rights) as it pivots into these kind of actions. The sudden interest in this mostly ends up looking like concern trolling from people who have been comfortable enjoying the dominance of "their side" in the political process for decades; "their side" in the overwhelming media presence directly controlled by, or underwritten by, the Mercers, Murdochs; the think tanks underwritten by the Kochs, and so on. I find it hard to grant much credibility when folks who have, for example, seemed comfortable with the idea that bakers should be able to turn away wedding cakes because of the sexual orientation of the purchaser, or that employers ought to be able to refuse contraceptives to employees because of the religious opinions of the owners now suddenly affecting concern for a slow-motion genocide in a country they likely couldn't locate on a map yesterday.