5 ms·
Where does it end though? Probably Brad Pitt and Elon Musk and Justin Bieber make a lot of people feel bad about their lives. Should media just stop reporting a
by joelbluminator 5y ago
Where does it end though? Probably Brad Pitt and Elon Musk and Justin Bieber make a lot of people feel bad about their lives. Should media just stop reporting about them?
- ghaff 5y agoHonestly? Yes, the world would probably be a better place if there were less coverage of celebrities--at least in mainstream publications that purport to be at least significantly focused on important news.
- Sebb767 5y agoWell, the outlets reporting on them became and stayed mainstream by reporting on this. If you ban these news from the "mainstream" ones, you'll just create a new set of mainstream news outlets.
- creature_x 5y agoI see your point but individuals living their sovereign lives isn't the issue; the issue is if Facebook keeps kindling the fires of division a day could come where we're knocking at the gates of a civil war. Is that too hyperbolic ? I don't know but if asking people in California what they think of Texas/Florida and vice-versa is a litmus test, perhaps some concern is in order.
- treeman79 5y agoFacebook is repeatedly banning politicians in a political party. Denying them a voice. Abraham Lincoln was not even on the ballot in several states. That did not go well. Politicians yelling at each other is a sausage factory, but good in that it keeps them busy. It’s alarming when a large portion of the population feels they no longer have any voice whatsoever. Now a big difference these days is that government surveillance is so incredibly tight that any one wanting to start unapproved trouble will be hunted down quickly.
- dukeofdoom 5y agoThe division seems to me leading more to a breakup of the united states, into smaller countries. If one believes in democracy, and local democratic will. Why would that necessarily be bad. The country is filled with red states on the inside, and blue states on the outside. Doesn't seem like the people in the middle are getting the kind of government they vote for. And the people in the blue states have to temper down their liberal pro socialism policies that have served them so well in big cities, to help them stop crime and end homelessness that don't necessarily apply on the inside. Take gun control. If you live in the middle of nowhere, the police are hours away from helping you. Owning a gun is your only realistic means of self defence.
- joelbluminator 5y agoIt's possible but the economic and social upheavel would be massive. Not a good scenario for anyone I think.
- el_ravager 5y agoEspecially for the relatively poor red states that depend on blue state subsidy.
- dukeofdoom 5y agoThere are still some southern states that have massive poverty. The union did not serve them well. I can see how they would be better off on their own. Hawaii as well. And its not just about poverty. Hawaiians would like to regain control over their culture, tourism levels, and so on. King of your castle. Even if your castle is just a shack. Counts for a lot. Also cities like Chicago and Detroit experienced huge declines, because of trade with China, that mostly benefits California. I can see how they would like their own policies on trade.
- dukeofdoom 5y agoI'm sure there were people walking around saying that in 1775. Yet Greater good prevailed, and US got its independence from Britain. Since its a Democratic Union, I hope it can be dissolved in a democratic way. Is the worry that each state would have fight to get independence?
- nullityrofl 5y agoThere have been a lot of people advocating for the death of the cult of celebrity and the narcissism it breeds in society, so maybe yes?
- joelbluminator 5y agoI am not against I am just saying there is no legal base to make an example out of Facebook when our entire culture operates the same way.
- kahmeal 5y agoFalse equivalence is an easy fallacy to fall prey to -- this is not the same thing. It is similar and in the same domain, but hardly equal.
- joelbluminator 5y agoDo you wanna elaborate? I am interested
- kahmeal 5y agoSure. Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt and any other celebrity do not employ the same nefariously data driven agenda on a scale that begins to come anywhere close to that of Facebook; They are not comparable in this context. Scale is a highly differentiating factor. A more genuine comparison would be to the likes of Robert Mercer, Roger Ailes, etc.
- joelbluminator 5y agoThe scale argument seems fishy to me. If we agree something is harmful and illegal usually scale does not matter. You can be a local drug dealer or a drug cartel and both are illegal. But my Angelina Jolie example was more about the fact that even without Facebook young girls will compare themselves to impossibly good looking women since our entire culture promotes it: do the actresses in Friends look like real life women? No, they are in the top 1% of women (Phoebe a bit less but she is the "funny" one). Anyways if we wanna make this illegal the implications are huge.
- coliveira 5y agoThere is a big difference here. The whistleblower is telling us that FB knows very well (with scientific studies) the harm they're causing, and decided not to do anything just because this would cut their profits. This is the main issue.
- litesaber 5y ago> The whistleblower is telling us that FB knows very well (with scientific studies) the harm they're causing, and decided not to do anything just because this would cut their profits. Do you have a link for the leaked research or the pointer to what we know FB knows? It's been difficult to figure out what exactly this is. The reporting on this has been terrible, what exactly has the whistle been blown over?