At the end of the day they're a business. In America, I can't think of many things that have priority over capitalism (profit over all).
Does Facebook have a right to exist and try their best to earn profit? Yes.
In doing so, they become a middle man for trying to push ads. Does this have measurable negative societal effects? Arguably. I would say "depends on who you ask" but it's pretty hard to look at it subjectively instead of objectively when there is so much data showing it's true.
But what's the alternative? Asking them to stop entirely? Unrealistic. Asking them to make less money not pushing certain content because it's divisive? That's the same content that got optimized to the top based on engagement statistics and is netting them "the most money" from advertisement views, right?
I get what you are saying about the negative effects, I just don't know how realistic it is to hold Facebook accountable when their primary motive is profit. If society tears itself apart in the process because Facebook gave society the platform to do that, at what point does the government intervene and ask them "hey, help us police moral/ethics to control the effects"?
This kind of glazes over the fact that the platform we're criticizing (the one that uses engagement algorithms to display ads on divisive content or whatever we've summarized it to) makes them billions a month/quarter/year/whatever.
"allowed to exist by society" is putting it lightly. It's in demand. High demand.
> At the end of the day they're a business. In America, I can't think of many things that have priority over capitalism (profit over all).
Huh? They could be better, but we have anti-corruption laws because fairness has priority over some degree of profit, we have worker protection laws because worker rights take priority over some degree of profit, we have occupational safety laws and health benefit laws because health takes priority over some degree of profit, we have a zillion laws that plainly demonstrate that social priorities often take some degree of priority over profit.
Social media is a new industry and we're working out the rules. Engagement optimization turns out to be detrimental to society's well-being, so yeah... we're probably going to figure out a way to assert that through law and regulation, and some participants might see their business model impacted along the way.
It's hard not believe that you're just trolling at this point.
> In America, I can't think of many things that have priority over capitalism (profit over all).
You're right. The profit mechanism should be abolished/replaced. But in the meantime Facebook is still morally culpible for their shenanigans, even if market forces agree with them.
> The profit mechanism should be abolished/replaced.
I just can't help but feel this view is wildly unpopular/radical almost anywhere other than an online social media forum for people who like to spend their free time in the comment section (like a Reddit or a HackerNews)
I won't say that the profit mechanism is responsible for all or our problems, but in modern society it can surely account for at least 80% of them.
I believe it's possible to retain autonomous production (ie, to not have a command economy) while using different mechanisms than profit to organize production.
That said, if you're saying "Facebook does evil things because the system incentivizes them to" then maybe the conclusion should be that we change the system, no? And whether the idea is popular or not seems irrelevant, given your admission that it's the root cause. Popularity also might be subject to change given the overall circumstances.
Does Facebook have a right to exist and try their best to earn profit? Yes.
In doing so, they become a middle man for trying to push ads. Does this have measurable negative societal effects? Arguably. I would say "depends on who you ask" but it's pretty hard to look at it subjectively instead of objectively when there is so much data showing it's true.
But what's the alternative? Asking them to stop entirely? Unrealistic. Asking them to make less money not pushing certain content because it's divisive? That's the same content that got optimized to the top based on engagement statistics and is netting them "the most money" from advertisement views, right?
I get what you are saying about the negative effects, I just don't know how realistic it is to hold Facebook accountable when their primary motive is profit. If society tears itself apart in the process because Facebook gave society the platform to do that, at what point does the government intervene and ask them "hey, help us police moral/ethics to control the effects"?