why oh why are giving them the benefit of the doubt? There was in fact a twirled moustache executive.
> Internal chats within the company stated, “Oh good, we’re going after <13 year olds now? Zuck has been talking about that for a while…targeting 11 year olds feels like tobacco companies a couple decades ago (and today). Like we’re seriously saying ‘we have to hook them young’ here.”
> Even after determining internally that teen safety was a massive problem on its platforms, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said, “teen time spent be our top goal of 2017.”
> One internal email from September 2018 indicates that, according to Meta, “The lifetime value of a 13 [year old] teen is roughly $270 per teen.”
This might seem like the most damning quote, but if you read it again it's pretty clear it's someone who's objecting. In other words, not a twirly mustached executive saying "we're going after <13 year olds" as an actual objective, or "we have to hook them young".
>> Even after determining internally that teen safety was a massive problem on its platforms, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said, “teen time spent be our top goal of 2017.”
>> One internal email from September 2018 indicates that, according to Meta, “The lifetime value of a 13 [year old] teen is roughly $270 per teen.”
So... exactly what I said earlier about "Shareholders wants growing revenues and users"?
That itself is hearsay, from someone who's apparently opposed to whatever Meta is doing. Taking that to mean Zuckerberg literally said "we should target 11 year olds" is a stretch.
Similarly, I get irritated when people frequently almost continuously attribute actions and results to ‘the President’ or such state heads.
Though I kind of doubt the Wells Fargo executives would’ve considered fake accounts a valid way to grow revenue. It seems Meta is happy to turn the blind eye, because addictive mechanics do in fact grow their revenue
My point isn’t that Zuck’s not responsible, but rather the system he’s created is fucked and a bandaid is to name all of those responsible
I generally agree with you, however this makes an assumption about what "correctly" means. In this case, Meta could be working correctly and take it's orders directly from the Zuck commander's intent. In which case he would be a single person that would have a massive impact on the outcome. Therefore, should be appropriately accountable.