You said in this thread [1], quote: "Facebook has a body count" and when someone responded blaming Facebook for an actual genocide you replied with: "Yeah, w

You said in this thread [1], quote: "Facebook has a body count" and when someone responded blaming Facebook for an actual genocide you replied with: "Yeah, when I say that Facebook has a body count, I'm not kidding" Then when someone else disagreed with you, stating that "the entire (read 100%) responsibility for the Rohingya Genocide or other similar events [lies with] the perpetrators" you doubled down by saying: "Facebook is morally responsible for that harm" and proceeded to argue that their "barest minimum" standard should be to ask, "Hey, is there a way to be sure this next feature is responsible for zero deaths?" You very clearly argued that in fact Facebook can be blamed for, well, god knows what. Genocide and "body counts" at minimum but it's pretty clear that you think almost anything can be blamed on a social network or other communication providers, given that basically all organized human activity involves technology-mediated communication at some point. And now you're trying to claim you never said Facebook can be blamed! If you didn't really mean that then you need to learn to better express yourself, because a whole lot of people in that thread interpreted it in that exact way and you proceeded to respond without correcting them, indeed, by telling them why their views would lead to more airline accidents (!). Ye gods, you must have been a serious liability problem waiting to happen with these attitudes. Imagine lawyers bringing up your views in discovery and then saying, Twitter's own staff definitely believe Twitter can and should be blamed for ${litigants harm} by their own arguments. Case closed, your honor. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32781165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32781165