Improve Facebook or Leave It
smallblog.desandro.com
smallblog.desandro.com
>Because Facebook has multiple figures in leadership positions that supported Trump. Thiel vocally, Luckey surreptitiously.
Thiel isn't in a leadership position at facebook (de facto or de jure - he's a board member who doesn't take a day-to-day role) and Luckey is about as marginalized as you can be within a company while maintaining contractual agreements. The real leadership of facebook seems genuinely progressive. Also, I'm not sure some employees supporting a mainstream politician is grounds for the company to be shaken up or disbanded (49% of voters supported Trump!).
>Because Zuckerberg believes the fake news his platform elevates played no part in the election ... Because Facebook’s core product promotes the distribution of false information
Nate Silver largely agrees: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/802272157954781185. And sure maybe it had some impact, but so did 50 other things going on. I'm not going to defend fake news and I think it's harmful to the election process and facebook, but this isn't a strong argument against facebook as a company.
>Because Facebook shipped a racist feature in its core advertising product.
A huge amount of advertising is targeted racially in a non-controversial way. This is a reality of advertising and I don't consider it racist. Facebook has made it clear it does not tolerate the illegal or discriminatory use of this feature.
No. Facts still matter. As of today, Trump has received just 46.6% of the vote.
Until that day, I'd much rather ensure that my children are safe and happy than to stand up against my employer's wrongdoings.
(I don't work for Facebook. But I thought about how practically impossible it would be for me to do the "right thing" if it were my company)
I'm not saying I would turn a blind eye if my company was doing something dangerous or illegal. But in that fuzzy zone of unethical, maybe illegal but maybe not... As awful as it sounds, my household has one income and it's not silicon valley amounts of money and it feels instinctive to protect my own above all else.
Just like in the U.S., elections in many countries are affected by the 'quality' of the information being shared and distributed through Facebook.
So Facebook - the people who work at Facebook - should promptly acknowledge its impact on public opinion and public perception (with the dangers that that implies) and immediately focus on finding solutions to these unexpected side-effects of social networks.
Things like echo chambers, fear vortexes, fake news, calls to (useless) protest and so on.
Social networks have the potential to generate serious unrest - as has been the case in many countries already, so these things should be taken very seriously - more than what Facebook is doing now.
Time for The Kardashians? Check! Think about what I just read? Oh sorry. That's FB's fault?
Really? We're advocating for mass ignorance and laziness? What's next? Blaming the super market because I buy soda, chips and processed food? Even when real food is right in front of me? Really?
Since Facebook makes this communication possible (and profits greatly from it), it should also assume the responsibility for the side-effects of such communication.
These effects exist and have consequences in the real world (sometimes violent) and if left unchecked things can quickly spiral out of control and lead to war.
Yes, people should be smarter and not believe the memes on Facebook, but they aren't and there is no time to wait for everyone to get enlightened, so a more practical and constructive solution is needed.
One such feature could be to provide 'alternative views' for posts - a sort of forced advertising - in which the views of the 'other' side are offered.
A nice and interesting AI project, could save the world..
There's no one else who can do it, only Facebook.
Its end is nigh, the era of socialising will come to an end when people realize its not what we wanted.
I will actually go as far as saying its one great app/idea away from going down. If someone made a proper app for creating events and it spread like wildfire attracting all the "kids", I think it would be game over for FB.com
I dont think theres anything else holding me back. Events and messenger...
Where you draw the line is up to you, though there is often a societal consensus on what a reasonable Overton window is like. The problem with your argument is that you want everyone to get along, but you want them to do it regardless of extreme differences in how different people want to shape the good life. It's hard to cooperate with someone that fundamentally opposes everything you stand for at your core and, importantly(!), wants to impose their views on you. This is important because it is far easier to tolerate differences between groups that do not impose their views on each other, which is the situation in which I agree with you more often than not [1].
If you want everyone to get along, you need to show why on particular issues, or for overarching reasons, it's not worth rejecting each other. Otherwise, I find what you say hard to accept when examined below the merest surface.
[1] A counter example would be a group that is murdering or mutilating its own members, and those members ask for help. That would be a clearly justified case for external intervention.