3 ms·
If you're familiar with any other harm reduction efforts, pretty much the same arguments are made against all of them. Take for example needle exchanges. Peopl
by bootlooped 5y ago
If you're familiar with any other harm reduction efforts, pretty much the same arguments are made against all of them.
Take for example needle exchanges. People who run needle exchanges are not asserting that people being addicted to heroin is a good outcome, only that people being addicted to heroin and also having to share dirty needles is worse.
Likewise, I'm not asserting that little kids using Facebook products is a good outcome, only that it may be less bad than other outcomes.
- agogdog 5y agoNeedle exchanges aren't willingly run by heroin manufacturers. It's impossible to believe in harm reduction when it comes from the harm producer. I'd be much more willing to accept this as harm reduction if Facebook outsourced the task to an independent non-profit... but even that arrangement comes with pro-Facebook biases.
- anoncake 5y agoArguably, not allowing children to use Facebook products is easier than keeping keeping heroin addicts from consuming heroin. Also, I doubt needle exchanges actually motivate anyone to start taking heroin whereas getting children to use Facebook products is obviously Facebook's aim here.