In case of Facebook, it was originally designed literally to compare the attractiveness of female students; but no, it’s not even remotely as bad, and comparing it to the Holocaust trivializes an incident where masses of people were murdered in an industrial fashion.

Possibly the point the author is making is that Zuckerberg never had an original idea or one that could be the subject of a business plan. He copied the "Hot or Not" websites that had come before. Further, the photos of students used for his "Facemash" website, i.e., the "content", were downloaded from the university's computers, not uploaded to Zuckerberg's computer. Initially, he downloaded and used students' photos without permission.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250115010420if_/https://www.th...

This pattern continued when he copied the idea of an online "face book" for the university which the university was already working on; adopting the name "thefacebook.com".

From the document production in Kadrey v Meta, it appears the pattern of copying still continues. Meta is still downloading and using others' work. Initially, without permission.

Comparing copyright infringment to assisting genocide is absurd. Although Meta may have assisted in ethnic cleansing

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/08/myanmar-time-...

there is no reference to it in the article. Perhaps because, unlike the story of "Facemash", it bears no relation to the subject matter: copyright infringment.