6 ms·

You really think Facebook is the equivalent of Big Tobacco? This moral panic is really reaching a feverish crescendo.

munk-a 5y ago
I think Big Tobacco is still worse but honestly? The extreme radicalism we're seeing in our modern society is pretty terrible - I just don't think it's fair to blame all of that radicalism on Facebook, even if it has played a role in nurturing it.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  It wasn't fair to blame all of cancer on Big Tobacco, either.
- dntrkv 5y ago
  > The extreme radicalism What do you think FB's role is in that? Do you think the "algorithms" are to blame? Seems to me that unmoderated online discussion will always be toxic. Take a look at the chan forums for an extreme, anonymous version of social media where there are no algorithms to blame. When you bring the general public online and give them a platform to voice their insane ideas they never discussed before, you get the internet in 2021. Combine that with the fact that until recently, people on the opposite sides of the political spectrum rarely interacted. The division was there, but it was masked by the inability to directly attack each other. Now, I can go on Twitter and argue all day with the other side in a thread below a Senator's tweet. Unless you are suggesting Facebook begin heavily moderating what people say, there will be no other outcome until we as a society collectively learn to 1. Have empathy for others when conversing online, 2. Stop participating in discussions that make you feel terrible, and the classic, 3. Don't believe everything you read online.
- marvin 5y ago
  I'm fairly confident that widespread internet-based multicast communication is almost solely responsible for many of the profoundly weird things that have happened in global politics for the last six years. It's a very powerful new tool for communication that has hit very fast and without enough time for society to adapt to the change. A textbook example of accelerating technological change throwing a monkey wrench into what seemed to be a well-oiled machine. It's fair enough to say that Facebook is only responsible for a significant part of this, as there's also Twitter, YouTube, Instagram (pre-acquisition), Snapchat, TikTok and so on, and there would be others if these did not exist. The root cause is smartphones, the Internet and cheap bandwidth & servers. But in the context of regulation, finding out how to deal with this new weapon of communication, starting with a case study of the biggest seems like an excellent beginning. I honestly think unregulated social media has the potential to do more damage than unregulated tobacco sales, if by regulation we mean "government-enforced rules". But I don't mean to frame it as a context; it seems obvious that both are a good idea.
RosanaAnaDana 5y ago
That's actually a great analogy. Years of social media and misinformation resulted in an attempted coup and insurrection earlier this year, the major contributing factors of which are still ongoing. I don't think phillip-morris ever got that far.
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  While FB no doubt contributed to the Jan 6 riot, it's too simple and tidy to blame it on social media. There is a complex web of factors, including interpretation of the Constitution, view of history, fear of tomorrow if the other side takes over, frustration with a sense of powerlessness, etc. Frankly, the Jan 6 episode is not all that different from the BLM riots last year, in that their causes are analogous and the sense of powerlessness led to rioting.
  - beambot 5y ago
    Except that one of them occurred at the time & place of the major transition of power and actively stormed a congressional session resulting in deaths in a core federal government building. But sure... other than that "not all that different".
    - ARandomerDude 5y ago
      No disagreement there, and for the record I am glad the Jan 6 rioters are being prosecuted. The point I was raising is that "Facebook = riot" is too simplistic an explanation. Moreover the contributing factors are not isolated to one event or political persuasion.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      I remember a church being set on fire across the street from the White House. I guess arson, especially if directed at Christian churches, is just the way we exercise our 1st Amendment rights in this country. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/historic-church-near-white-house-damaged-amid-unrest-leaders-pray-for-healing/2318673 https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/historic-church-nea...
aaroninsf 5y ago
Facebook is much, much, much worse. Assuming general equivalency in manipulation of public opinion to hide their malfeasance, the impact of that malfeasance is orders of magnitude worse for our society, democracy, and world culture. If you have any doubt about this, you haven't looked at any of the reporting, not just from this latest data dump, but from any of the other whistle-blowing, leaks, third party investigations, etc. It's not just that they bury and spin any internal findings which may compromise their ability to pursue "engagement," it's so so much worse. Look at the documents. This whistleblower brought the receipts. Their continued operations as a monolith represents an acute and active threat. They should be broken up and subjected to transparency requirements. That's what you get when you pursue profit and power at the expense of social cohesion, functioning government, and in the case of many in harsh realities outside the US, assistance in brutal political suppression and worse.
- aaroninsf 5y ago
  LOL downvotes are the surest possible sign of unsettling and upsetting those who are complicit. Work for them? Quit. Do business with them? Don't. Think access to clients and relationships with them depend on participating in this ecosystem? It doesn't. Break the monopoly.
atonse 5y ago
Facebook has a much wider reach than Bic Tobacco could dream of. As far as actual impact on thousands of lives, it's probably a tossup since Facebook has many means of ruining lives (psychological manipulation, distrust in government, pandemic misinformation, political misinformation). But I'd wager that Facebook has probably already caused way more harm than tobacco. It's hard to measure though.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Distrust in government is a democratic necessity. There were more insidious source for misinformation on vaccines than Facebook, although some of the worst cases were favored by government (lab leak suppression). Tendency is that the parent comment is correct and the proposed solutions are practically bretty bad.
irrational 5y ago
It's worse, right? Other than second-hand smoke, tobacco for the most part hurts just that person. The same can't be said for social media.
- mFixman 5y ago
  Tobacco kills 8 million people per year, and that's with over half a century of regulation and cessation problems taxation. It's also a disgusting habit that destroys any area smokers step in. HN is at its worse when fuming over Facebook, and comparing the tragedy caused by smoking companies with social media is a good example of how uninformed the site can get.
  - satellite2 5y ago
    With only 10 years of existence and already to its palmares a genocide in Myanmar and making the worst pandemic since the plague much worse, I think the comparison is not so far fetched.
    - mFixman 5y ago
      So the Burmese government and military junta had nothing to do with the genocide. The local media, endemic discrimination, local warlords, international support, nor the people actually guiding and doing the genocide had any responsability. Was social media the cause for the 1994 genocide in Rwanda too?
      - satellite2 5y ago
        As with cigarette seller, it was never in their best interest that their product cause cancer. But it does. In top of that they had evidence of it earlier than the public and chose to hide it. Facebook had many internal whisteblowers that the platform was used to shape the public opinion and facilitate the genocide and choose to do nothing.
      - shadilay 5y ago
        "Cut the tall trees" Mass media sure helped.
kevingadd 5y ago
https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+myanmar https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+myanmar https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55929654 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55929654
heavyset_go 5y ago
Read "A Genocide Incited on Facebook, With Posts From Myanmar’s Military"[1] and "Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar"[2]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...

I think Big Tobacco is still worse but honestly? The extreme radicalism we're seeing in our modern society is pretty terrible - I just don't think it's fair to blame all of that radicalism on Facebook, even if it has played a role in nurturing it.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
It wasn't fair to blame all of cancer on Big Tobacco, either.
dntrkv 5y ago
> The extreme radicalism What do you think FB's role is in that? Do you think the "algorithms" are to blame? Seems to me that unmoderated online discussion will always be toxic. Take a look at the chan forums for an extreme, anonymous version of social media where there are no algorithms to blame. When you bring the general public online and give them a platform to voice their insane ideas they never discussed before, you get the internet in 2021. Combine that with the fact that until recently, people on the opposite sides of the political spectrum rarely interacted. The division was there, but it was masked by the inability to directly attack each other. Now, I can go on Twitter and argue all day with the other side in a thread below a Senator's tweet. Unless you are suggesting Facebook begin heavily moderating what people say, there will be no other outcome until we as a society collectively learn to 1. Have empathy for others when conversing online, 2. Stop participating in discussions that make you feel terrible, and the classic, 3. Don't believe everything you read online.
marvin 5y ago
I'm fairly confident that widespread internet-based multicast communication is almost solely responsible for many of the profoundly weird things that have happened in global politics for the last six years. It's a very powerful new tool for communication that has hit very fast and without enough time for society to adapt to the change. A textbook example of accelerating technological change throwing a monkey wrench into what seemed to be a well-oiled machine. It's fair enough to say that Facebook is only responsible for a significant part of this, as there's also Twitter, YouTube, Instagram (pre-acquisition), Snapchat, TikTok and so on, and there would be others if these did not exist. The root cause is smartphones, the Internet and cheap bandwidth & servers. But in the context of regulation, finding out how to deal with this new weapon of communication, starting with a case study of the biggest seems like an excellent beginning. I honestly think unregulated social media has the potential to do more damage than unregulated tobacco sales, if by regulation we mean "government-enforced rules". But I don't mean to frame it as a context; it seems obvious that both are a good idea.

RosanaAnaDana 5y ago

That's actually a great analogy. Years of social media and misinformation resulted in an attempted coup and insurrection earlier this year, the major contributing factors of which are still ongoing. I don't think phillip-morris ever got that far.

ARandomerDude 5y ago
While FB no doubt contributed to the Jan 6 riot, it's too simple and tidy to blame it on social media. There is a complex web of factors, including interpretation of the Constitution, view of history, fear of tomorrow if the other side takes over, frustration with a sense of powerlessness, etc. Frankly, the Jan 6 episode is not all that different from the BLM riots last year, in that their causes are analogous and the sense of powerlessness led to rioting.
- beambot 5y ago
  Except that one of them occurred at the time & place of the major transition of power and actively stormed a congressional session resulting in deaths in a core federal government building. But sure... other than that "not all that different".
  - ARandomerDude 5y ago
    No disagreement there, and for the record I am glad the Jan 6 rioters are being prosecuted. The point I was raising is that "Facebook = riot" is too simplistic an explanation. Moreover the contributing factors are not isolated to one event or political persuasion.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    I remember a church being set on fire across the street from the White House. I guess arson, especially if directed at Christian churches, is just the way we exercise our 1st Amendment rights in this country. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/historic-church-near-white-house-damaged-amid-unrest-leaders-pray-for-healing/2318673 https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/historic-church-nea...

aaroninsf 5y ago

Facebook is much, much, much worse. Assuming general equivalency in manipulation of public opinion to hide their malfeasance, the impact of that malfeasance is orders of magnitude worse for our society, democracy, and world culture. If you have any doubt about this, you haven't looked at any of the reporting, not just from this latest data dump, but from any of the other whistle-blowing, leaks, third party investigations, etc. It's not just that they bury and spin any internal findings which may compromise their ability to pursue "engagement," it's so so much worse. Look at the documents. This whistleblower brought the receipts. Their continued operations as a monolith represents an acute and active threat. They should be broken up and subjected to transparency requirements. That's what you get when you pursue profit and power at the expense of social cohesion, functioning government, and in the case of many in harsh realities outside the US, assistance in brutal political suppression and worse.

aaroninsf 5y ago
LOL downvotes are the surest possible sign of unsettling and upsetting those who are complicit. Work for them? Quit. Do business with them? Don't. Think access to clients and relationships with them depend on participating in this ecosystem? It doesn't. Break the monopoly.

atonse 5y ago

Facebook has a much wider reach than Bic Tobacco could dream of. As far as actual impact on thousands of lives, it's probably a tossup since Facebook has many means of ruining lives (psychological manipulation, distrust in government, pandemic misinformation, political misinformation). But I'd wager that Facebook has probably already caused way more harm than tobacco. It's hard to measure though.

raxxorrax 5y ago
Distrust in government is a democratic necessity. There were more insidious source for misinformation on vaccines than Facebook, although some of the worst cases were favored by government (lab leak suppression). Tendency is that the parent comment is correct and the proposed solutions are practically bretty bad.

irrational 5y ago

It's worse, right? Other than second-hand smoke, tobacco for the most part hurts just that person. The same can't be said for social media.

mFixman 5y ago
Tobacco kills 8 million people per year, and that's with over half a century of regulation and cessation problems taxation. It's also a disgusting habit that destroys any area smokers step in. HN is at its worse when fuming over Facebook, and comparing the tragedy caused by smoking companies with social media is a good example of how uninformed the site can get.
- satellite2 5y ago
  With only 10 years of existence and already to its palmares a genocide in Myanmar and making the worst pandemic since the plague much worse, I think the comparison is not so far fetched.
  - mFixman 5y ago
    So the Burmese government and military junta had nothing to do with the genocide. The local media, endemic discrimination, local warlords, international support, nor the people actually guiding and doing the genocide had any responsability. Was social media the cause for the 1994 genocide in Rwanda too?
    - satellite2 5y ago
      As with cigarette seller, it was never in their best interest that their product cause cancer. But it does. In top of that they had evidence of it earlier than the public and chose to hide it. Facebook had many internal whisteblowers that the platform was used to shape the public opinion and facilitate the genocide and choose to do nothing.
    - shadilay 5y ago
      "Cut the tall trees" Mass media sure helped.

kevingadd 5y ago

https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+myanmar https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+myanmar https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55929654 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55929654

heavyset_go 5y ago

Read "A Genocide Incited on Facebook, With Posts From Myanmar’s Military"[1] and "Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar"[2]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...