"landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children"
This is precisely the point, facebook did not do anything special to attract these events. Quite they opposite they try to eliminate it, however successfully.
They built a platform monetarily incentivised to promote attention-grabbing content. They then it loose in a country just opening up to the outside world. That is reckless. Combined with their history of profiting from such violence, it looks downright evil.
Zuckerberg et al are our generation's analog to Goldman Sachs' bankers helping the oligarchs pillage post-Soviet Russia [1].
[1] https://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia/
That's definitely a tetanus filled rusty playground if I ever heard of it.
> By the same logic we can also blame the internet as a whole.
It may be trendy to hate on Facebook right now, but this kind of hand-wringing is ultimately an argument for internet censorship.
Which is what scares me. News lately have scared a lot of people into this censorship-supporting mentality and the idea of some sort of thought police.
To have a healthy public discourse we need to strive for is educating people so immoral acts don't happen, not implement mechanisms that could lend themselves to censorship.
An attractive nuisance is not something specially put there to attract a person or incident. It's something that attracts just by it's being there in its current state.