3 ms·

I’m not really sure if I agree with this argument against Facebook. It’s true that Facebook had a part in this, but the same can be said for any kind of media f

I’m not really sure if I agree with this argument against Facebook. It’s true that Facebook had a part in this, but the same can be said for any kind of media for any given historical conflict. Here’s an article describing the effect radio had on the rise of Hitler: https://daily.jstor.org/an-affordable-radio-brought-nazi-propaganda-home/ https://daily.jstor.org/an-affordable-radio-brought-nazi-pro... A few years before these genocides, western media were praising Facebook for its role in the uprisings in the Middle East. It was seen as a force for good, allowing people to self organise against dictatorial regimes. Hell, back in the day the printing press pretty much brought down all of the power structures at the time, because suddenly people had more free access to information.

mhoad 4y ago
I think there are some pretty meaningful differences here where Facebook has been repeatedly made aware of these problems prior to the fact and has consistently responded in the exact same manner by refusing to take any meaningful action and only trying to solve things in so much as it is a PR problem for them. It wasn’t even indifference, they actively undercut and mislead all of the supposed checks and balances they assured everyone were enough both internally and externally. When confronted they have lied to their internal teams, they have lied to lawmakers, they have lied to investors. It is always the same response. There is no room left to leave this as a “mistake that fell through the cracks”. It’s a pattern of behaviour that now spans many years and many incidents. All it has shown is that they appear both incapable and unwilling of reform and should be treated as such.