4 ms·

If it wasn't for him, it would be someone else. He is not the inventor of the internet. It is completely the parents' fault for allowing their children to use s

If it wasn't for him, it would be someone else. He is not the inventor of the internet. It is completely the parents' fault for allowing their children to use social media. Do we blame car manufacturers for young people driving and killing themselves or others? No.

YakBizzarro 2y ago
"If it wasn't for him, it would be someone else." wow, I will use this defence, it's perfect!
- system2 2y ago
  I already was someone else actually. Many times over and over again. He is not the inventor of social media. His site (or acquiring Instagram) was just another tool someone else already created in the past. His stuff was just more popular. China and Russia have their own versions too. If his stuff shuts down now, tomorrow someone else will create similar ones and fill the void in no time.
  - croes 2y ago
    Then someone else is liable too. You could say the same about drug dealers, if one stops another one replaced him
- croes 2y ago
  A german philosopher once said, that is a stupid response to renounce responsibility, at this moment someone in Berlin rapes a woman, if I don’t do it …
croes 2y ago
If cars could be driven without keys we would blame car manufacturers. How do you prevent kids using social media without 100% surveillance or not allowing internet access at all?
- fairity 2y ago
  > How do you prevent kids using social media without 100% surveillance or not allowing internet access at all? Do the parental controls on mobile phones not work? I'm not a parent, so I don't know, but it seem unbelievable to me that there isn't an effective way to grant internet access to kids without social media.
  - seb1204 2y ago
    Often not to be honest. And then once 14 they get some permission back on their accounts
  - croes 2y ago
    You underestimate the cleverness of kids to circumvent such controls. Do you think antivirus software prevents all viruses? The same is true for parental control
  - nuancebydefault 2y ago
    Parental controls will not completely remove addiction. The algorithms are steering towards that, regardless of the age rating of content. Still, is it Zuckerberg's fault or just how capitalism works (optimize for max profit)? I believe only strict regulations can help. Is there any regulation against addiction to (social) media?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- kelipso 2y ago
  Guns don't need keys, do they. Sure they're trying but the cases against the gun companies didn't go anywhere. And I am certain car companies won't be held liable for allowing starting without keys. Keys are only there because of theft.
  - croes 2y ago
    Maybe guns companies win in court but we still blame them.
nashashmi 2y ago
Just because someone else can also kill doesn't absolve the killer for killing. But I get your point. Killing is illegal. social media harm is not. The analogy remains.
almatabata 2y ago
Remember when facebook got caught running psychological experiments on its users? (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook-apologises-psychological-experiments-on-users https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook-...) I do not trust myself with identifying when companies tweak the algorithm to mess with my psyche. How can I trust myself with identifying with my own kids except when it becomes really obvious in the content or in their behavior? > Do we blame car manufacturers for young people driving and killing themselves or others? Cars had no seat belts, had no crumple zone, would crush the driver when the engine got pushed in. We literally put more and more requirements on cars to make them as safe as reasonably possible. If social media has negative effects why would we not legislate these companies in such a way as to reduce the negatives? You can argue there is no negative effect if you want. But if they have negatives effects then don't we need to rein them in?
- nostrademons 2y ago
  Pretty much every business runs psychological experiments on their customers. That's what the ad industry is, that's why retailers run sales to gather pricing data, that's what A/B testing is for. It's interesting to look at the triple standard of harm across different institutions though: Science: your job is to learn things, you must bring every possible harm you can think of from your experiment to an ethical review board, and if there's a chance it might hurt people, you can't run your experiment. Business: your job is to maximize profit, you may harm people in the pursuit of this as long as you do so within the bounds of the law. Defense: your job is to kill people, do what you want as long as it's our enemies. Clearly, people value killing foreigners > making money > discovering new knowledge.
  - almatabata 2y ago
    > Pretty much every business runs psychological experiments on their customers. That's what the ad industry is, that's why retailers run sales to gather pricing data, that's what A/B testing is for. Sure but there are differences between the psychological experiments. I would argue that running a sale is benign compared to manipulating words in social media post to see how it influences your mood. What effect will that have on people with already fragile psyches? I understand its legal whatever facebook has done but still I think that there should be restrictions on the kind of psychological tests you can run like this. Unless I overestimate the effect these studies have. > Clearly, people value killing foreigners > making money > discovering new knowledge. Killing foreigners is mostly a way to maintain or gain influence so I would say its more: power > making money > discovering new. The killing foreigners part is just a means to an end.
saghm 2y ago
I don't understand this logic. If he was found liable, and then someone else did it instead, they could be sued as well for the same thing? "Multiple people might be motivated to do the same thing for profit that society thinks shouldn't be allowed" isn't an argument against stopping it.

YakBizzarro 2y ago

"If it wasn't for him, it would be someone else." wow, I will use this defence, it's perfect!

system2 2y ago
I already was someone else actually. Many times over and over again. He is not the inventor of social media. His site (or acquiring Instagram) was just another tool someone else already created in the past. His stuff was just more popular. China and Russia have their own versions too. If his stuff shuts down now, tomorrow someone else will create similar ones and fill the void in no time.
- croes 2y ago
  Then someone else is liable too. You could say the same about drug dealers, if one stops another one replaced him
croes 2y ago
A german philosopher once said, that is a stupid response to renounce responsibility, at this moment someone in Berlin rapes a woman, if I don’t do it …

croes 2y ago

If cars could be driven without keys we would blame car manufacturers. How do you prevent kids using social media without 100% surveillance or not allowing internet access at all?

fairity 2y ago
> How do you prevent kids using social media without 100% surveillance or not allowing internet access at all? Do the parental controls on mobile phones not work? I'm not a parent, so I don't know, but it seem unbelievable to me that there isn't an effective way to grant internet access to kids without social media.
- seb1204 2y ago
  Often not to be honest. And then once 14 they get some permission back on their accounts
- croes 2y ago
  You underestimate the cleverness of kids to circumvent such controls. Do you think antivirus software prevents all viruses? The same is true for parental control
- nuancebydefault 2y ago
  Parental controls will not completely remove addiction. The algorithms are steering towards that, regardless of the age rating of content. Still, is it Zuckerberg's fault or just how capitalism works (optimize for max profit)? I believe only strict regulations can help. Is there any regulation against addiction to (social) media?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
kelipso 2y ago
Guns don't need keys, do they. Sure they're trying but the cases against the gun companies didn't go anywhere. And I am certain car companies won't be held liable for allowing starting without keys. Keys are only there because of theft.
- croes 2y ago
  Maybe guns companies win in court but we still blame them.

nashashmi 2y ago

Just because someone else can also kill doesn't absolve the killer for killing. But I get your point. Killing is illegal. social media harm is not. The analogy remains.

almatabata 2y ago

Remember when facebook got caught running psychological experiments on its users? (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook-apologises-psychological-experiments-on-users https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook-...) I do not trust myself with identifying when companies tweak the algorithm to mess with my psyche. How can I trust myself with identifying with my own kids except when it becomes really obvious in the content or in their behavior? > Do we blame car manufacturers for young people driving and killing themselves or others? Cars had no seat belts, had no crumple zone, would crush the driver when the engine got pushed in. We literally put more and more requirements on cars to make them as safe as reasonably possible. If social media has negative effects why would we not legislate these companies in such a way as to reduce the negatives? You can argue there is no negative effect if you want. But if they have negatives effects then don't we need to rein them in?

nostrademons 2y ago
Pretty much every business runs psychological experiments on their customers. That's what the ad industry is, that's why retailers run sales to gather pricing data, that's what A/B testing is for. It's interesting to look at the triple standard of harm across different institutions though: Science: your job is to learn things, you must bring every possible harm you can think of from your experiment to an ethical review board, and if there's a chance it might hurt people, you can't run your experiment. Business: your job is to maximize profit, you may harm people in the pursuit of this as long as you do so within the bounds of the law. Defense: your job is to kill people, do what you want as long as it's our enemies. Clearly, people value killing foreigners > making money > discovering new knowledge.
- almatabata 2y ago
  > Pretty much every business runs psychological experiments on their customers. That's what the ad industry is, that's why retailers run sales to gather pricing data, that's what A/B testing is for. Sure but there are differences between the psychological experiments. I would argue that running a sale is benign compared to manipulating words in social media post to see how it influences your mood. What effect will that have on people with already fragile psyches? I understand its legal whatever facebook has done but still I think that there should be restrictions on the kind of psychological tests you can run like this. Unless I overestimate the effect these studies have. > Clearly, people value killing foreigners > making money > discovering new knowledge. Killing foreigners is mostly a way to maintain or gain influence so I would say its more: power > making money > discovering new. The killing foreigners part is just a means to an end.

saghm 2y ago

I don't understand this logic. If he was found liable, and then someone else did it instead, they could be sued as well for the same thing? "Multiple people might be motivated to do the same thing for profit that society thinks shouldn't be allowed" isn't an argument against stopping it.