5 ms·

Social media companies post record earnings year after year from their ads business while increasingly proving to be harmful to society. They do the bare minimu

• larodi 5mo ago
  Sadly I dare not say anything rude against Facebook and its policies, as it gets immediately devoted for presumably harsh language or incitement of hatred. Well I really hate everything there is about FB in 2026 and have avoided it by all means possible ever since 2017. My actual FB is now called HN, but... I guess 1) HN has its own limits; 2) everything is fine, look the other way and it will go.
• mannanj 5mo ago
  Is this not a Straw Man, as I'm hearing you say "they do the bare minimum in terms of content moderation and bots" whereas if as the title of the article claims, meta is instead "blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences" then the problem is that the content moderation itself is the problem, not "not doing enough" in content moderation. It's their content moderation and perhaps bot policies causing damage. I have first hand experience with how harmful their policies were during the SARS-COV-2 era, where I and peers who shared about health practices we were following with decades of experience to help improve our health were moderated and censored due to Facebook policies.
  • jazzypants 5mo ago
    Buddy... Are you a doctor? Are you a scientist? Why do you think that you have an inalienable right to proselytize your "health practices" on a public forum? My experience was that there wasn't nearly enough moderation on social media about Covid. The absurd amount of misinformation was the final straw that finally got me to leave Facebook and Instagram.
    • tclancy 5mo ago
      Because giving every maniac an equal voice and hearing them out is asymmetric. They have the burden of proof to have said “my perfectly validated facts I’ve learned in two decades as a scientist” or whatever if they wanted to provide that context. Then again, here I am arguing in good faith with you, so more the fool I.
      • JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
        > They have the burden of proof This isn’t how the algorithm works. It costs less than $10k to get some conspiratorial nonsense circulating nowadays, and less than $1mm to flood the zone.
        • tclancy 5mo ago
          Sorry, I think this got confused because you can only reply so deep. I meant conspiracy theory folks should have the burden of proof. If you're saying that's completely naive in the current climate, I agree. I am only arguing that's how we should treat commenters who seem more than 7 bubbles off plumb: ignore entirely unless they provide reason not to.
          • JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
            > ignore entirely unless they provide reason not to The reason not to is they start trending and then infecting the political system. By the time anyone brings evidence to the table, the status quo has been shifted.
      • mannanj 4mo ago
        Just to be clear, are you calling me a Maniac without actually knowing me or what I've done or my experience? and throwing off the word "conspiracy" theory and attempting to simply shut down my voice. Thanks for demonstrating my point. I can't wait until one day you get old enough and wise enough to hold a voice that is anti-mainstream or anti-populist, and some youngin throws your words Conspiracy right back at you to censor you. Enjoy what we call, "Karma" my friend.
  • deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
• philipallstar 5mo ago
  This is the exact opposite of what you think. The problem is the governments in those places, and not the private company. The private company would gladly connect everyone.
  • rileymat2 5mo ago
    Not opposite, a different problem. If you remove one viewpoint because of government mandate, while still carrying the other, your platform is creating a biased viewpoint to influence people, that’s on the platform.
    • philipallstar 5mo ago
      The platform deciding to obey local laws is not "on the platform". It's on the local laws.
      • rileymat2 5mo ago
        The choices between not operating in that jurisdiction, accepting the legal consequences that jurisdiction can enforce or obeying the laws in that jurisdiction is certainly on a choice of the platform. And the resulting product is their responsibility and a reflection on them for better or worse. There have been numerous cases of companies ignoring local law for both good and bad.
  • throwaw12 5mo ago
    > The problem is the governments in those places, and not the private company. Do you think Meta will comply if North Korea or Iran requests same censorship? If your answer is "No, they will not comply", then problem is the company
    • lotsofpulp 5mo ago
      Does Meta do business in either of those jurisdictions? If the answer is “No”, then it makes sense they would not follow laws they do not have to.
• stellamariesays 5mo ago
  [flagged]
• forshaper 5mo ago
  Broadly, I think an ad tax that hits both ad platforms and ad purchases would do a lot to focus businesses.
• yojo 5mo ago
  I’m taking it as a given that any sufficiently large social network is a gigantic propaganda machine of interest to domestic and foreign nation-state actors. Entertaining the thought experiment where all the normies join the fediverse: now you’ve got a big juicy target maintained by hobbyists. When it’s Lazarus Group vs Randall, the over-worked sys admin who stood up a node in his spare time, who do you think wins? Social networks are cancer. Just ban the lot of them and move on.
  • dpoloncsak 5mo ago
    >Just ban the lot of them and move on. How do you define social network, though? Is Facebook a social network, even though it includes a marketplace? Is HN a social network? Is Newgrounds a social network....? Seems difficult to stomp out effectively
    • hoppyhoppy2 5mo ago
      We could start by stomping out the Linux kernel mailing lists; that cancer is at the root of so many other social networks' software.
    • 0x5FC3 5mo ago
      We can come up with a definition and refine it. Maybe something like: algorithmic content suggestions trying to maximize engagement and time on app (leave out chronological + explicit follow). Banning is not the way to go about things. India is always ban happy -> a competitive exam in a state? Take down internet in the whole state to curb cheating. Outright banning hard to deal with stuff sets a bad precedent.
      • svachalek 5mo ago
        You don't ban the users or the internet, you make it illegal to do shitty psyops on the public. They were making plenty of money on chronological friend feeds.
        • repeekad 5mo ago
• underlipton 5mo ago
  I would like someone to come up with a way to block tracking and complicate their data collection processes, with consumers able to remove those features selectively in return for cash payments from Meta et al. The problem is that consumers don't have control of their data and are grossly under-compensated for it (primarily with access to broken, predatory services that are mostly designed to extract even more money from their pockets). There needs to be a rebalancing; tech ads should be stupidly low-margin because data sales are actually compensated correctly.
• pear01 5mo ago
  The problem with this summation is the government is complicit in their actions. Thus it undermines this simple private gain, public pain argument. A lot of the times when Meta does something like this the fact the governments in question essentially demand that action seems to be ignored. Would you have a better view of corporate power if corporations could unilaterally ignore the laws of sovereign countries in which they operate? Wouldn't it normatively be more in keeping with a proper distinction between public and private to say lobby your congressman to stop the ceaseless funding and weapon deployments to countries in the ME that don't share our values? I have the same feeling when people complain about Meta and privacy. I mean at least they are giving you a "free" service and you essentially take part in a transaction. The NSA has all your data anyway. Does anyone remember their congressional rep trying to convince them this is a good idea? You can log off from Facebook at any time. In some jurisdictions you can even claim a right to be forgotten. Try sending such a request to the NSA or your local police department. Do you really think such public entities are more trustworthy than their private bedfellows merely because they fall on opposite lines of the public/private divide? If you want a new public culture you should probably identify the real target is not private companies which really don't care about these questions and just want to do whatever moves margins. Your real problem is a lot less easy to propagandize about - the fact that a majority of your fellow citizens (in the USA at least) don't actually care about their (and by extension - your) privacy or human rights in the Middle East. They want cheap oil and cheap products. Not sure how many election cycles American liberals need to live through to get this through their heads.
  • 0x5FC3 5mo ago
    I hear you, there are countless problems to solve. My "..in a just world.." was doing a lot of heavy lifting. > I mean at least they are giving you a free service and you essentially take part in a transaction. Yes, it is akin to a transaction, but we cannot ignore the power imbalance between the user and the corporation. They actively engineer their platforms to keep you glued to the screen. It is far from free. You pay with time, money spent on whatever is advertised to you and a lot of other things. My proposal was analogous to say tobacco tax or carbon tax and the like. We somehow made it essential to be on social media, it is proven to be harmful, policy action to shift priorities.
• reaperducer 5mo ago
  In a just world, would social media platforms be taxed higher on corporate revenue and how would that pan out? Maybe we'll be left with small federated platforms without algorithms and ads. Make them put big block ads across ⅓ of the screen with rotating warnings of the harms of the web site people are using, like with cigarette packs. People hate friction online.
• pants2 5mo ago
  In a just world all companies would be taxed on their overall impact and not just revenue. Coca Cola would be taxed for their contribution to obesity and plastic waste. Exxon would be taxed for their emissions. Meta would be taxed for its harmful impacts on society and childhood development.
  • Ray20 5mo ago
    > taxed for their contribution to obesity It's always amazing how fatties can shift responsibility onto others. The calorie count for Cola is listed right on the bottle. Just don't drink it if you're to fat. And spend a few hours teaching your fat kids to read.
    • bdangubic 5mo ago
      > The calorie count for Cola is listed right on the bottle. Just don't drink it if you're to fat. And spend a few hours teaching your fat kids to read. it is legal to drink Cola, yes? so I will drink it as I have no control over it... eventually I am going to have serious health issues... and Ray20 will pay for this from his taxes... or alternatively, we can add some tax to companies that are net negative to society and are causing Ray20's money to be spent on my fat asses healthcare, yes?
      • Ray20 5mo ago
        > or alternatively, we can add some tax to companies that are net negative to society Or alternatively, we can leave Ray20 alone and not force him to pay for the treatment of a 200 kg fatties with the illegal motorcycle racing and wingsuit jumping hobbies. > companies that are net negative to society It is fatties who are net negative to society, not companies.
        • bdangubic 5mo ago
          Ray20 gonna pay taxes or go to Federal Prison
• deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
• gigatree 5mo ago
  What is this “just world” of which you speak?
• bartread 5mo ago
  > In a just world In a just world what Zuckerberg and his cronies are doing - the sheer unrelenting tidal wave of destabilising societal damage (nationally, internationally, globally), not to mention the negative consequences of bullying and the exacerbation of mental health issues at individual and group levels over the course of, now, decades - would be considered crimes, and they would all be put on trial, held to account, and appropriately sanctioned for them. What he's done to individuals, to marginalised and oppressed groups, to societies, and to global stability is far worse than any damage that, for example, Sam Bankman-Fried managed to do and yet somehow SBF is in prison for 25 years and Zuck walks free. Not OK. (Not to say SBF doesn't deserve his criminal penalty but to highlight the disconnect where we're not seeing similar treatment of these social media moguls who, at very best, are completely indifferent to the harm they cause but whom, one starts to suspect, are actually gunning for that harm in order to cement their own power and positions.)
  • kridsdale1 5mo ago
    SBF took money from rich people and nearly lost it. Zuck made money for rich people. Criminal culpability must always filter through this lens.
  • runarberg 5mo ago
    I think what social media companies are doing is both immoral and criminal. In a just world this behavior would count as a crime against humanity and the people responsible would be tried in a court of law accordingly. In a just world we would have strong consumer protection laws which would protect users against the behavior your parent described. And consumer protection agencies would shut these companies down before they were able to cause this much harm, The worst offenders like Zuckerberg would be criminally charged and go to prison.
  • deaux 5mo ago
    In a just world Zuckerberg would already be talked of only in past tense. This reality will get flagged/killed without a single Meta employee/astroturfer who does the flagging providing a justification as to why this isn't true.
• deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
• hsuduebc2 5mo ago
  Yea. It's side by side with lead, forever chemicals, azbestos. And by the experience people will start to do anything about it only when it will cause even bigger societal damage.