(I’m influenced here by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway’s work in “Merchants of Doubt.”)
(I’m influenced here by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway’s work in “Merchants of Doubt.”)
Of course, I wouldn't say that being aware of the problems your product causes makes you less culpable; just the opposite.
At the same time, I think that when it comes to assessing whether the company is acting in good faith or not, it is important to consider not just what research they do or don’t do, but also which findings they choose to promote and which they choose to keep internal…
(Part of the fiasco with tobacco or climate is that those companies knew the risks associated with their products well enough, but didn’t publicize the findings that might cast them in a bad light in the same way that they publicized the findings that supported a “let’s wait and see” approach to policy. See for example https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...)
Facebook has a tough problem, though, because a lot of their criticism is not just one wing of loonies, it's from every direction including normal sane people, and a lot of them agree with each other for once. I don't think they're breaking any laws, but I don't doubt someone will invent a shady case or charge them under a new law just because everyone hates Zuck. Not sure how you dodge that.
They could Split /diversify /dilute the brand /products the way google has done making it harder to associate with the bad things directly.