That’s definitely his wanking face
This is silly. It’s not any one company’s job to parent your children.
It wouldn’t hurt for Facebook to provide the tools to better handle the situation but it’s not like Zuck or anyone at Facebook directly participated in any of this.
The Facebook whistleblower said that there was indication that the algorithm was promoting eating disorders to teenage girls. When it was reported to the execs, the reaction of the execs was like “yeah but what kind of ad numbers are we getting on that content?” and decided not to change anything.
Sure I agree people shouldn’t let social media algorithms raise their children. But that doesn’t mean social media companies should be given carte blanche to behave like psychopaths. They can and should adjust their algorithms when harmful content is being promoted even while parents should be doing more to monitor their children’s activity online. We can do both!
But I think they should probably change the CDA so social media companies are liable for the content their algorithms promote. It’s actually a removal of some regulation, that’s what the silicon valley tech bros want, right? Less regulation?
It’s not their job, but they can do it with very little effort and they don’t. Like it or not, children are on Facebook, and if Meta can slap you within 3 seconds of posting a nipple, they can remove content that actually IS harmful.
“I’m not responsible for the wellbeing of my children, big tech is!” This kind of shit is how we get forced into having to use government IDs to use the internet. Some states already do it for porn. The danger isn’t big tech, it’s harassment that should be taken care of offline.
You want to regulate them go for it but what if they go for the internet as a whole and not just social media? Then what?
OH, SO, stalker calls me and tells me to end myself you mean I can’t get paid by Verizon? Bullshit! I should be protected. The KIIIIIDDDS should be protected!
Someone uses a bulletin board at a post office to post a picture of my kid with captions on it that cause my kid to feel depressed, I WANT LAWS! The person who is in charge of the post office? Straight to jail! Manufacturer of the bulletin board? YUP, prison! Company who made the paper? Everyone who works there should be locked up!
Now, back to reality.
Wherever humans can be social, there will be bad humans using that to hurt other humans. You’re right. It should start with the parents. We didn’t ban kids from using telephones and television. Some parents did. That’s their business.
Facebook should do the best they can to enforce their policies about minors being on the platform, but billions of people use Facebook. Billions. They can’t possibly be responsible for all of it.
I don’t like Facebook as a company, at all. Still though, we should do better to handle our homes and stop counting on outsiders to do it all for us.
I don’t like Facebook, Twitter, any of those sites either nor do I use them but what I can’t get over is that people demand action and I haven’t seen any suggestions. Just a demand for change. The only thing that comes to mind in censoring messages/tweets but wow that would be a great way to kill the site.
Adults want a free, open experience for themselves but also want a safe, enclosed space for kids. In the same spot. So how do you differentiate between an adult and a kid reliably without an ID?
You can’t. And it’s why there will never be a solution. Kids will lie to get the adult freedom and then suffer the consequences be it mental or otherwise.
Letting your kid on the Internet without supervision is akin to giving them unlimited blank plane tickets. Yes they could experience some very enriching event but could and most likely will be left hurt and traumatized in an unfamiliar place.
But that kind of argument can go back to every generation for every sufficient advancement of media. “Without supervision your kids could watch something traumatizing on TV” i.e. horror movies, and I’m sure the same extends to the radio and even books. The world can be traumatizing but it isn’t the world’s responsibility to have kid-safe barriers on everything just in case.
That’s my point. It’s your kids not mine. Not my job to care for them irl and not my job to care for them on the Internet.
A day later, Biden announced, “If you harm an American, we will respond”, and dropped missiles on more than 80 targets across Syria and Iraq. Sure bro, just so long as the Americans aren’t teenagers with smart phones.
Who wrote this??? Sure bro, that sounds like some social media comment. And why use a retaliation bombing as a positive example??? That’s just absurd. Bombings are never good and can always wound or kill innocent people. I get the message social media has negative effects on teenagers but by god the writing style is just braindead.
If Zuck could monetize dead kids maybe he’d care
This whole article is just golden with contradictions.
deleted by creator
No one with power gives a shit and congress is just showboating. Maayyyybe they’ll fine him .001% of his worth.
Is a single child’s life worth a billion dollars? What about 10 children? 100?
Not to them. Until business leaders are held accountable for the crimes that are allowed to happen, nothing is going to change. And I doubt that will ever happen. People are far too easy to bribe.
How many deaths would you all be willing to leave unpunished for a million? What about a billion? One, at least. Don’t lie. Think of all the lives you could save with that money. Exactly. Now we’re all accomplices.
I don’t think I’d be willing to overlook the deaths of young people for an amount of money. The reason your comment seems reasonable is because a lot of us need money to survive in this hellscape. People in power don’t need the bribes. Yet they take them anyways.
Make no mistake of how deplorable these people are. They don’t overlook deaths to help people or pay off their car or eat this month. They do it so they can buy stocks that they unfairly trade and then make millions for a third home and sports car. Would the average person do this? No because the average person isn’t insane and doesn’t want to be a politician.
Greed is greed regardless if you have money already or not. And also you’re a lair. You have a price.
Weird assertion to make. I don’t feel that my life would be improved by having unimaginable amounts of money. Would I like enough to comfortably retire? Yep. Would I trade someone’s life to retire right now? No. Other than that I wouldn’t really care to have more money.
This is why rich people are psychopaths. It isn’t normal to put greed over peoples lives. But it’s also what the US mentality encourages which is why you think I’m wrong.
Anyone’s life? What about a billionaire. You get all their money, to do whatever with. And they drop dead.
You’re asking a different question. If I were to want them to die, it wouldn’t be because I want their money. It would be because I view their lives as a moral negative which causes incalculable harm.
If obtaining their money was a side benefit of their death, I would spend almost all of it promoting and enacting humanism. I really don’t need what they have.
I’m just establishing that you’re willing to sacrifice someone you dislike.
Robopology
Greedopology
Edna Krabappoly
