3 ms·

Lets be clear, Mark Zuckerberg could make changes to avoid this harm to children, As the controller of these companies he would sure be fully aware of the probl

Lets be clear, Mark Zuckerberg could make changes to avoid this harm to children, As the controller of these companies he would sure be fully aware of the problem - its all over the media and has been for years. These social media companies place profit over the harm of children.

carabiner 2y ago
Expect this to grow as Zuck has revealed himself to be a centrist Trump supporter. He's pals with Musk, but he runs Threads as a liberal version of X/Twitter. It's the most blatant form of divide and conquer I've seen from the billionaire class.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
ThrowawayTestr 2y ago
If you were in his shoes, what would you do?
parsimo2010 2y ago
Zuck could probably prevent lots of other bad things happening too. He has enough money to feed every starving person in San Francisco. Does that mean that if anyone in SF dies of starvation that we should try Zuck for manslaughter? I don’t think blame falls to him personally because he failed to do something that others wished he had. The judge did not say that Meta itself isn’t responsible. I think their corporate priorities are probably misaligned with the good of humanity. But it isn’t Zuck by himself who did all this- it’s teams of researchers and software devs and product managers- that’s a corporation. You probably couldn’t impose a large enough fine to prevent Meta optimizing for kids’ attention- they are such a huge source of profit. If you really want to protect the kids you need straight up regulatory bans.
- MattPalmer1086 2y ago
  > Does that mean that if anyone in SF dies of starvation that we should try Zuck for manslaughter? There is an obvious difference between not preventing a harm that is a direct result of your activity, and not preventing a harm which isn't.
- jinushaun 2y ago
  That’s not a really compelling argument. Facebook is his company. He steers the ship. People are complaining that he’s telling the people rowing the boat to run over people in the water. Whether his hand is on the steering wheel is moot. Secondly, him not directly feeding starving people in SF is not the same. It’s unrelated. He is not the mayor of SF, but he is the CEO of Meta.
twohaibei 2y ago
This has been clear for a long time. The question is who has the power and will to do something sufficient about it to stop it. The money is so huge they can buy enough protection. And social media is not even the only one doing it knowingly. But until fine < profit, fines will be paid. And until execs dont go to jail, they will still be happy to rake in the billions.
sirspacey 2y ago
Genuine question: How is this clear? What lever could Zuck pull that would prevent this harm? From the research I’ve read the harm of social media is, almost exclusively, in the zone of what people post on it (ex: bullying) or what they are seeking to accomplish by posting (ex: looksmaxxing). I struggle to see how the harm that causes is caused by the ability to share it.

carabiner 2y ago

Expect this to grow as Zuck has revealed himself to be a centrist Trump supporter. He's pals with Musk, but he runs Threads as a liberal version of X/Twitter. It's the most blatant form of divide and conquer I've seen from the billionaire class.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ThrowawayTestr 2y ago

If you were in his shoes, what would you do?

parsimo2010 2y ago

Zuck could probably prevent lots of other bad things happening too. He has enough money to feed every starving person in San Francisco. Does that mean that if anyone in SF dies of starvation that we should try Zuck for manslaughter? I don’t think blame falls to him personally because he failed to do something that others wished he had. The judge did not say that Meta itself isn’t responsible. I think their corporate priorities are probably misaligned with the good of humanity. But it isn’t Zuck by himself who did all this- it’s teams of researchers and software devs and product managers- that’s a corporation. You probably couldn’t impose a large enough fine to prevent Meta optimizing for kids’ attention- they are such a huge source of profit. If you really want to protect the kids you need straight up regulatory bans.

MattPalmer1086 2y ago
> Does that mean that if anyone in SF dies of starvation that we should try Zuck for manslaughter? There is an obvious difference between not preventing a harm that is a direct result of your activity, and not preventing a harm which isn't.
jinushaun 2y ago
That’s not a really compelling argument. Facebook is his company. He steers the ship. People are complaining that he’s telling the people rowing the boat to run over people in the water. Whether his hand is on the steering wheel is moot. Secondly, him not directly feeding starving people in SF is not the same. It’s unrelated. He is not the mayor of SF, but he is the CEO of Meta.

twohaibei 2y ago

This has been clear for a long time. The question is who has the power and will to do something sufficient about it to stop it. The money is so huge they can buy enough protection. And social media is not even the only one doing it knowingly. But until fine < profit, fines will be paid. And until execs dont go to jail, they will still be happy to rake in the billions.

sirspacey 2y ago

Genuine question: How is this clear? What lever could Zuck pull that would prevent this harm? From the research I’ve read the harm of social media is, almost exclusively, in the zone of what people post on it (ex: bullying) or what they are seeking to accomplish by posting (ex: looksmaxxing). I struggle to see how the harm that causes is caused by the ability to share it.