Facebook Is Not Necessary

I think that's a fair counterpoint, but I'm not sure it covers the whole charge.

What Facebook does is both to limit the diversity of opinion to which a single user is exposed, as well as extend the reach of particular points of view (those on the more extreme end, which are more "performative"). That creates validation of points of view that can be expressed harmfully, and creates a gathering cloud of cultural force that would likely not exist without it's influence.

The algorithms radicalize people:

https://www.wired.com/story/christchurch-shooter-youtube-rad...

Just because Facebook and Youtube managemt aren't doing as intentionally as Fox News management does, doesn't make the effect not real.

"Facebook is as much to blame for this as Gutenberg is."

The invention of the printing press is a good analogy to Facebook; it catalyzed the Protestant Reformation which caused centuries of persecution, war and unrest in Europe. Communication media are very powerful tools that have far reaching effects. It's not about "blame".

Okay, but if I see something shared that I know to be false and can demonstrate to be false with links to robust summaries of evidence and argument from trusted sources then how do I respond? The Facebook model is that I have no real alternative except to share opposing views with others in my bubble. It is fine for your grandpa to talk to racists, but if he shares his newfound junk with me then I should be able to flag it and link the truth such that any viewer of his posts can see how others see it.

> Facebook accurately detects that your grandpa wants to talk to racists and gives him that ability.

Facebook ENCOURAGES grandpa to talk to racists because that increases "engagement". And they block his contact with non-racists.

That's a gigantic difference.

Okay, let's say grandpa is racist. But he has to keep it toned down because his grandkids don't like that talk and admonish him occasionally.

Facebook, however, gives him positive reinforcement to be racist. And he will now argue with his grandkids because he has the social validation from Facebook and Fox that "It's perfectly okay to be racist, and there are lots of racists just like you." And Facebook will match him with more people who are increasingly racist because that increases the engagement further.

Facebook amplifies the tendency rather than damping the tendency.

And eventually all his grandkids can do is quit coming to see him because he's now a lost cause.

We saw this in the January 6th insurrection. Lots of people didn't get the fact that they were participating in an insurrection because their social validation circle was too closed to point that out.

Environment changes people, so if you sorround people with racists, then they're likely to become racists

Social media made a lot of things go insanely viral and cause damage: Trump, Brexit, BLM...

All of those just divide people

and more:

"approximately 57% of Trump supporters read at least one fake news article in the month prior to the 2016 election compared to only 28% of Clinton supporters. Older Americans were also more likely to visit untrustworthy news websites.

Perhaps most alarming is the observed “stickiness” of fake news websites. The researchers estimate that people spend an average of 64 seconds consuming a fake news articles compared to only 42 seconds on verified news stories."

You're asking for data and then using your anecdotal experience as proof that whatever data you're going to get will be false.

Do you see how that A) puts the burden of research you should do yourself onto someone else, and B) tells people that you won't believe them anyway?

There have been thousands of articles and studies with specific examples. You should try Googling it first and build up a real counterpoint before telling people you don't believe all the research.