If we change `lure` to `manipulate into wanting`, then yes I would say that. I would also expand this to _any_ marketing. I am currently wrestling with if I would go as far to say that _all communication_ is _manipulation_ but I feel that's a step too far for some reason while I definitely feel that _marketing_ is _manipulation_.
Now, there’s certainly a case that Facebook’s products are harmful, but is it Facebook’s intent to harm people? I don’t personally think so, but others may disagree. “Lure” is the type of language you use if you want to equate Facebook with pedophiles and fairytale villains in your readers’ minds.
Offering something desirable (a product that people want to use) - check
To trap someone (can't move to another platform, all your friends and data are in a walled garden) - check
And do harm to them (use data to target further manipulation/advertising) - check
(And that's not even considering the more psychological harms of Facebook, which they may not intend but they certainly know about, have enflamed, and have done nothing to combat)
For the purposes of this discussion, is it really different from knowing that their products are harmful and still making sure as many people as possible use them?
Facebook aims to maximize engagement. Engagement is maximized by showing content that makes people angry and scared. [0] Is it harmful to make people scared and angry to maximize the amount of ads that pass their eyeballs? I know Facebook has internal research that shows them how Facebook affects people mentally (not great!), so ignorance isn’t a defense for them here.
[0] This is a WaPo article reposted on MSN, no paywall bypass needed https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/five-points-for-an...
Telling you about a new song you'd want to hear? Good. Telling you that I've got a can of beer for you, just after you've left an AA meeting? Bad.
Who would distinguish that? The receiver? The giver? Something/someone else? T