4 ms·

So how many more are dead from Facebook etc?

by therouwboat 4y ago

Deathcrow 4y ago
Facebook has probably killed more people with face detection and name tagging in photos alone.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  If even only half the material presented in "The social dilemma" was credible, Meta have absolutely been knowingly responsible for more harm than KF. I don't know what the right solution is.
ALittleLight 4y ago
It's not countable, but vastly more than three. There are civil wars and ethnic cleansing that get organized and supported on Facebook (e.g. Ethiopia and Myanmar). Gang violence and mass murder also get spread on Facebook. Nevermind the harassment and bullying that happens on Facebook, which is, of course, orders of magnitude more than what goes on on KF. It's just not very sensible to think that big companies care about a few people dying because of a small forum when they demonstrably do not care about many, many, more people dying because of a big forum. It seems way more plausible to me that big tech companies work together to kill small social media than that they have some secret ethic which compels them to care about small harms over big harms.
- 1ris 4y ago
  Intent is the key ingredient to crime (or other behaviours society does not tolerate). You totally ignore this.
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    Oh, I see. Thank you for clearing this up for me. When big, rich, powerful companies get people killed they didn't intend to, so, actually, no harm done. When big, rich, powerful companies accuse a small community of getting someone killed obviously they did intend to do it and so they need to be shut down. Very illuminating!
    - therouwboat 4y ago
      Yeah, when you intentionally cause harm and even drive people to suicide, its worse than unintentionally causing harm.
    - clucas 4y ago
      Can't you engage the point in good faith? Of course intent matters! If you have a fleet of trucks and occasionally one of your drivers gets in an accident, that's way different than if you have a fleet going out there running people off the road. I think you may have good point hiding in there (maybe "Facebook may not do it intentionally, but they've been so negligent that..."), but it's lost in the dripping sarcasm. The point you're replying to wasn't that ridiculous.
      - ALittleLight 4y ago
        I would say that I did engage in good faith. I mean the argument I'm making and I'm making my arguments the way I feel is best. It is, of course, completely ridiculous to think that "intent" separates Facebook and KiwiFarms. Facebook doesn't intend to cause civil wars, genocides, spree killers, gang violence, body dismorphia, self-harm, harassment, and suicide. Facebook intends to connect people so that they can develop a social network and monetize the social network and they are willing to break a few eggs to make that omelette. You might as well say that it is the color of Mark Zuckerberg's shoes that matters as say it is Facebook's intent. No, obviously, what matters is the bad stuff and the people harmed. It's not like any of those people are less dead because of Facebook's intentions. If Facebook had terrible intentions and excellent outcomes that would be a much better world. The other problem with saying intent is what matters is that the people who make this argument also make some kind of magical mind reading claim that they know the intentions of others. "Intent is what matters, and I know the intentions of KiwiFarms! They are bad!" Just save everyone some time and explain that you know KiwiFarms is bad and that is why they must be destroyed. KiwiFarms is bad because they intended to get people killed. No, there is no evidence for that. And yes, there is plenty of evidence against that in the form of trying to get people hurt being against the rules and moderation of the site. No, there was no police or legal action against KiwiFarms for the crimes we "know" they were committing - but all that is beside the point. We know their intent! It is bad and they must be removed!
  - AndrewUnmuted 4y ago
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    Intent - mens rea in the law - is not about the intent to [commit insert crime here]. It is about the intent to do the thing that resulted in the crime. That is why if you get blackout drunk and drive through a crowd of kids, you get charged with manslaughter: you didn't intend to kill those kids, but you intended to get blackout drunk and drive, which resulted in the death of the kids. Facebook absolutely would have criminal intent the same way kiwifarms would - in both cases, they intended to serve content from their users.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mrweasel 4y ago
At least seven. I did a quick search on DuckDuckGo, because I remembered at least one suicide covered in Danish media. The first page alone yielded seven different teenagers from Ireland, United Kingdom, Canada and Danmark. So just guessing here, but Meta properties alone must have killed thousands of teenagers.

So how many more are dead from Facebook etc?

Deathcrow 4y ago

Facebook has probably killed more people with face detection and name tagging in photos alone.

wizofaus 4y ago
If even only half the material presented in "The social dilemma" was credible, Meta have absolutely been knowingly responsible for more harm than KF. I don't know what the right solution is.

ALittleLight 4y ago

It's not countable, but vastly more than three. There are civil wars and ethnic cleansing that get organized and supported on Facebook (e.g. Ethiopia and Myanmar). Gang violence and mass murder also get spread on Facebook. Nevermind the harassment and bullying that happens on Facebook, which is, of course, orders of magnitude more than what goes on on KF. It's just not very sensible to think that big companies care about a few people dying because of a small forum when they demonstrably do not care about many, many, more people dying because of a big forum. It seems way more plausible to me that big tech companies work together to kill small social media than that they have some secret ethic which compels them to care about small harms over big harms.

1ris 4y ago
Intent is the key ingredient to crime (or other behaviours society does not tolerate). You totally ignore this.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  Oh, I see. Thank you for clearing this up for me. When big, rich, powerful companies get people killed they didn't intend to, so, actually, no harm done. When big, rich, powerful companies accuse a small community of getting someone killed obviously they did intend to do it and so they need to be shut down. Very illuminating!
  - therouwboat 4y ago
    Yeah, when you intentionally cause harm and even drive people to suicide, its worse than unintentionally causing harm.
  - clucas 4y ago
    Can't you engage the point in good faith? Of course intent matters! If you have a fleet of trucks and occasionally one of your drivers gets in an accident, that's way different than if you have a fleet going out there running people off the road. I think you may have good point hiding in there (maybe "Facebook may not do it intentionally, but they've been so negligent that..."), but it's lost in the dripping sarcasm. The point you're replying to wasn't that ridiculous.
    - ALittleLight 4y ago
      I would say that I did engage in good faith. I mean the argument I'm making and I'm making my arguments the way I feel is best. It is, of course, completely ridiculous to think that "intent" separates Facebook and KiwiFarms. Facebook doesn't intend to cause civil wars, genocides, spree killers, gang violence, body dismorphia, self-harm, harassment, and suicide. Facebook intends to connect people so that they can develop a social network and monetize the social network and they are willing to break a few eggs to make that omelette. You might as well say that it is the color of Mark Zuckerberg's shoes that matters as say it is Facebook's intent. No, obviously, what matters is the bad stuff and the people harmed. It's not like any of those people are less dead because of Facebook's intentions. If Facebook had terrible intentions and excellent outcomes that would be a much better world. The other problem with saying intent is what matters is that the people who make this argument also make some kind of magical mind reading claim that they know the intentions of others. "Intent is what matters, and I know the intentions of KiwiFarms! They are bad!" Just save everyone some time and explain that you know KiwiFarms is bad and that is why they must be destroyed. KiwiFarms is bad because they intended to get people killed. No, there is no evidence for that. And yes, there is plenty of evidence against that in the form of trying to get people hurt being against the rules and moderation of the site. No, there was no police or legal action against KiwiFarms for the crimes we "know" they were committing - but all that is beside the point. We know their intent! It is bad and they must be removed!
- AndrewUnmuted 4y ago
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Intent - mens rea in the law - is not about the intent to [commit insert crime here]. It is about the intent to do the thing that resulted in the crime. That is why if you get blackout drunk and drive through a crowd of kids, you get charged with manslaughter: you didn't intend to kill those kids, but you intended to get blackout drunk and drive, which resulted in the death of the kids. Facebook absolutely would have criminal intent the same way kiwifarms would - in both cases, they intended to serve content from their users.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mrweasel 4y ago

At least seven. I did a quick search on DuckDuckGo, because I remembered at least one suicide covered in Danish media. The first page alone yielded seven different teenagers from Ireland, United Kingdom, Canada and Danmark. So just guessing here, but Meta properties alone must have killed thousands of teenagers.