5 ms·

it's not so much that. It's the stigmatizing that they're doing -- as if you're somehow 'bad' by not being an organ donor. Yes it's admirable, but it's the pri

it's not so much that. It's the stigmatizing that they're doing -- as if you're somehow 'bad' by not being an organ donor. Yes it's admirable, but it's the principle that gets me more than the details of this. While organ donation is a good thing, where does it stop after this? edit: for example, why doesn't he do some social engineering to help all the starving children in third world countries? I don't have figures, but I'd like to see the numbers of people who die because there was no organ available to them compared to the number of children who die because they don't have food.

ceejayoz 14y ago
> it's not so much that. It's the stigmatizing that they're doing -- as if you're somehow 'bad' by not being an organ donor. Well, you are, if you ask me. Not donating is tremendously selfish, I'd say. > edit: for example, why doesn't he do some social engineering to help all the starving children in third world countries? Organ donation costs me nothing. It is an act that has zero downside to me. Donating food has at least some downside, as it deprives me of something (money or food) I would have had.
- horsehead 14y ago
  See, this is exactly why this sort of thing should not be on facebook. It will contribute to a decay of relations between people who think someone is a bad person for not donating and someone who thinks there is nothing wrong with not donating.
  - pazimzadeh 14y ago
    And? It's not Facebook's job to make people like each other, and I'm sure you won't have to share your donor status if you don't want to. There are plenty of things that people can judge you about on Facebook (sex, race, attractiveness, religious views).
  - horsehead 14y ago
    Pazimzadeh: ""The company announced a plan on Tuesday morning to encourage everyone on Facebook to start advertising their donor status on their pages, along with their birth dates and schools"" When facebook has 'a plan' to get you to share this, it gets to a level above simply putting your religious views et al on your FB page.
- drivingmenuts 14y ago
  Selfish, maybe, but that's still a very personal choice and one that doesn't cause any direct harm, if you choose not to. We are all well within our rights not to donate organs.
  - pazimzadeh 14y ago
    How do you mean? There is a shortage of organs for transplants. If you don't donate, another person will die. That's pretty direct.
    - drivingmenuts 14y ago
      But I am not the cause of that person's death. The cause of their death will likely be disease or accident or some other thing unrelated to my person. Learn the difference between direct and indirect.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    Sure, but I've the right to think someone who doesn't opt to donate them is something of a dick for indirectly causing needless deaths/suffering.
    - tomjen3 14y ago
      If Wallmart ran campaings saying that democrats were stupid and Jebuss was our saviour, would you be more or less willing to do business with them?
- horsehead 14y ago
  I think my point is this: how is this any different from religious evangelizing? It's pushing his personal views on other people needlessly. And Zuckerberg using a platform as large as facebook to cajole people into revealing stuff like this to satisfy his personal desire to support some arbitrary cause, it displays a high degree of irresponsibility.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    Really? This is what shows Facebook to be irresponsible? I didn't see many folks on HN complaining that Facebook/Google/etc. shouldn't take an advocacy position on SOPA, so it strikes me as odd how controversial Facebook taking one on organ donation is.
    - awj 14y ago
      > I didn't see many folks on HN complaining that Facebook/Google/etc. shouldn't take an advocacy position on SOPA, so it strikes me as odd how controversial Facebook taking one on organ donation is. That's because Facebook and Google had legitimate business interests involved in SOPA. Unless Facebook is getting into the organ donation business, I don't see how your example is relevant.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  Organ donation is stupid. It makes you feel good, but how do you prevent your liver from going to an alchoholic who likes to fuck children? Demand to control your organs and what they are used for.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    > Organ donation is stupid. It makes you feel good, but how do you prevent your liver from going to an alchoholic who likes to fuck children? I'd imagine that particular combination is reasonably rare, and most donation organizations require alcoholics to demonstrate abstinence from alcohol for 6+ months to be eligible.
    - tomjen3 14y ago
      Ex alchoholic then. I was personally more concerned with the child-rapist part.
      - ceejayoz 14y ago
        I wasn't, mainly because anyone proven to be one is presumably in jail and thus has a much harder time finding a transplant.
  - dspillett 14y ago
    > Organ donation is stupid. You would not think that is you or someone you cared about needed a new organ. > how do you prevent your liver from going to an alchoholic who likes to fuck children? Er, I think the 1 in x00,000 chance of my organs helping someone like that is a risk worth taking for the much much higher chance they will help decent people. There is nothing that I can do to stop my organs being donated to people who say dickish things on the Internet like you just have either - and if there were processes available by which I could express a preference there are a lot of people who would jump the queue in front of you should you be needing and otherwise next in line at the time. You could use exactly the same ludicrous argument to "defend" never giving anything to any charity or other cause.
- dspillett 14y ago
  > Well, you are, if you ask me. Not donating is tremendously selfish, I'd say. I don't disagree with you in the general case, but remember that some people can not donate for medical reasons, or because of significant social pressure. While it is easy for us to say "fuck your family / church / other peer group, they are a silly bunch of idiots / misinformeds / fundies who you are better off without anyway" on the social pressure front it really isn't that easy for people in such a situation. Anything that stigmatizes someone in that position will push them further into the hold of the errant peer group as they'll feel less welcome outside of it. > Organ donation costs me nothing. I'm told that the key problem, in this country anyway, is not people who don't want to donate but people who either never state a preference or do so and never explain their wishes to their family (who can and too often do override a donors instructions). Why is hasn't been legislated that the family can't override a person's decision to donate I'm not sure (though I suspect it has something to do with lobbying from certain religious groups).
carleverett 14y ago
This is a really bad argument. First of all with the understanding by the public that your Facebook status is not necessarily your organ donor status, there is no stigma. Then your edit... organ donations are a good thing just not as good as donating food to Africa? I'm sorry Mark Zuckerberg isn't saving the world as fast as you would like him to. I see an enormous benefit in this - as mentioned even your driver's license doesn't really determine whether or not you donate organs upon death; it's up to your family in the end. Do you know everyone in your family's organ donor status? My hunch is that this is news to a lot of family members upon the death of their loved one. Because your Facebook profile is public, I think your family is more inclined to believe that it is what you really wanted - whereas your driver's license is a box you check once when you're 16 that you never really think about again.

ceejayoz 14y ago

> it's not so much that. It's the stigmatizing that they're doing -- as if you're somehow 'bad' by not being an organ donor. Well, you are, if you ask me. Not donating is tremendously selfish, I'd say. > edit: for example, why doesn't he do some social engineering to help all the starving children in third world countries? Organ donation costs me nothing. It is an act that has zero downside to me. Donating food has at least some downside, as it deprives me of something (money or food) I would have had.

horsehead 14y ago
See, this is exactly why this sort of thing should not be on facebook. It will contribute to a decay of relations between people who think someone is a bad person for not donating and someone who thinks there is nothing wrong with not donating.
- pazimzadeh 14y ago
  And? It's not Facebook's job to make people like each other, and I'm sure you won't have to share your donor status if you don't want to. There are plenty of things that people can judge you about on Facebook (sex, race, attractiveness, religious views).
- horsehead 14y ago
  Pazimzadeh: ""The company announced a plan on Tuesday morning to encourage everyone on Facebook to start advertising their donor status on their pages, along with their birth dates and schools"" When facebook has 'a plan' to get you to share this, it gets to a level above simply putting your religious views et al on your FB page.
drivingmenuts 14y ago
Selfish, maybe, but that's still a very personal choice and one that doesn't cause any direct harm, if you choose not to. We are all well within our rights not to donate organs.
- pazimzadeh 14y ago
  How do you mean? There is a shortage of organs for transplants. If you don't donate, another person will die. That's pretty direct.
  - drivingmenuts 14y ago
    But I am not the cause of that person's death. The cause of their death will likely be disease or accident or some other thing unrelated to my person. Learn the difference between direct and indirect.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  Sure, but I've the right to think someone who doesn't opt to donate them is something of a dick for indirectly causing needless deaths/suffering.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    If Wallmart ran campaings saying that democrats were stupid and Jebuss was our saviour, would you be more or less willing to do business with them?
horsehead 14y ago
I think my point is this: how is this any different from religious evangelizing? It's pushing his personal views on other people needlessly. And Zuckerberg using a platform as large as facebook to cajole people into revealing stuff like this to satisfy his personal desire to support some arbitrary cause, it displays a high degree of irresponsibility.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  Really? This is what shows Facebook to be irresponsible? I didn't see many folks on HN complaining that Facebook/Google/etc. shouldn't take an advocacy position on SOPA, so it strikes me as odd how controversial Facebook taking one on organ donation is.
  - awj 14y ago
    > I didn't see many folks on HN complaining that Facebook/Google/etc. shouldn't take an advocacy position on SOPA, so it strikes me as odd how controversial Facebook taking one on organ donation is. That's because Facebook and Google had legitimate business interests involved in SOPA. Unless Facebook is getting into the organ donation business, I don't see how your example is relevant.
tomjen3 14y ago
Organ donation is stupid. It makes you feel good, but how do you prevent your liver from going to an alchoholic who likes to fuck children? Demand to control your organs and what they are used for.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  > Organ donation is stupid. It makes you feel good, but how do you prevent your liver from going to an alchoholic who likes to fuck children? I'd imagine that particular combination is reasonably rare, and most donation organizations require alcoholics to demonstrate abstinence from alcohol for 6+ months to be eligible.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    Ex alchoholic then. I was personally more concerned with the child-rapist part.
    - ceejayoz 14y ago
      I wasn't, mainly because anyone proven to be one is presumably in jail and thus has a much harder time finding a transplant.
- dspillett 14y ago
  > Organ donation is stupid. You would not think that is you or someone you cared about needed a new organ. > how do you prevent your liver from going to an alchoholic who likes to fuck children? Er, I think the 1 in x00,000 chance of my organs helping someone like that is a risk worth taking for the much much higher chance they will help decent people. There is nothing that I can do to stop my organs being donated to people who say dickish things on the Internet like you just have either - and if there were processes available by which I could express a preference there are a lot of people who would jump the queue in front of you should you be needing and otherwise next in line at the time. You could use exactly the same ludicrous argument to "defend" never giving anything to any charity or other cause.
dspillett 14y ago
> Well, you are, if you ask me. Not donating is tremendously selfish, I'd say. I don't disagree with you in the general case, but remember that some people can not donate for medical reasons, or because of significant social pressure. While it is easy for us to say "fuck your family / church / other peer group, they are a silly bunch of idiots / misinformeds / fundies who you are better off without anyway" on the social pressure front it really isn't that easy for people in such a situation. Anything that stigmatizes someone in that position will push them further into the hold of the errant peer group as they'll feel less welcome outside of it. > Organ donation costs me nothing. I'm told that the key problem, in this country anyway, is not people who don't want to donate but people who either never state a preference or do so and never explain their wishes to their family (who can and too often do override a donors instructions). Why is hasn't been legislated that the family can't override a person's decision to donate I'm not sure (though I suspect it has something to do with lobbying from certain religious groups).

carleverett 14y ago

This is a really bad argument. First of all with the understanding by the public that your Facebook status is not necessarily your organ donor status, there is no stigma. Then your edit... organ donations are a good thing just not as good as donating food to Africa? I'm sorry Mark Zuckerberg isn't saving the world as fast as you would like him to. I see an enormous benefit in this - as mentioned even your driver's license doesn't really determine whether or not you donate organs upon death; it's up to your family in the end. Do you know everyone in your family's organ donor status? My hunch is that this is news to a lot of family members upon the death of their loved one. Because your Facebook profile is public, I think your family is more inclined to believe that it is what you really wanted - whereas your driver's license is a box you check once when you're 16 that you never really think about again.