Again, not trying to go to bat for Facebook by any means, and I think you're well meaning with your point, but I worry think this is a dangerous argument to go down.
1) While they're not perfect, I'm not sure I believe they're doing more harm than good. As an annecdotal example, my family loves Facebook, because I live pretty far from most of them, and they like the ability to know that I'm healthy + happy, and/or if I'm travelling that I got back safely. They're generally older, so not that tech-savvy, and I do give Facebook Design a lot of credit for making some really intuitive choices in a lot of areas that make it accessible to older / non-geeky audiences. Could I just text / call them? Sure, but I'm a busy person like most people here, so it's easy to just throw up a picture or post to FB and make their days a bit better.
2) A lot of the arguments that they're doing "harm" are pretty pseudo-scientific, if you look at the claims/articles closely. Many rely on "correlation over causation" views, anecdotes, and the like. It's only recently that some true studies have tried to prove this [1], but even then arguing for putting FB on the level of tobacco and guns is a strong claim to make off of minimal peer-reviewed evidence. We might as well toss Google + Amazon + Twitter into this same boat.
Sure, but I'm a busy person like most people here, so it's easy to just throw up a picture or post to FB and make their days a bit better.
It's somewhat ironic you use this as an argument for good. I'm much like yourself in this scenario, so I'm not trying to take a moral high ground, but I can't say I truly believe this is enriching the relationships of people on either side.
Comments
If the company is doing more harm than good, what's wrong with counteracting it with information?
If Facebook is the vector of incitement to violence around the world, they may be as hazardous as tobacco and firearms.
Nothing wrong with regulation and information campaigns about the dangers of tobacco and firearms, so why not Facebook?
Again, not trying to go to bat for Facebook by any means, and I think you're well meaning with your point, but I worry think this is a dangerous argument to go down.
1) While they're not perfect, I'm not sure I believe they're doing more harm than good. As an annecdotal example, my family loves Facebook, because I live pretty far from most of them, and they like the ability to know that I'm healthy + happy, and/or if I'm travelling that I got back safely. They're generally older, so not that tech-savvy, and I do give Facebook Design a lot of credit for making some really intuitive choices in a lot of areas that make it accessible to older / non-geeky audiences. Could I just text / call them? Sure, but I'm a busy person like most people here, so it's easy to just throw up a picture or post to FB and make their days a bit better.
2) A lot of the arguments that they're doing "harm" are pretty pseudo-scientific, if you look at the claims/articles closely. Many rely on "correlation over causation" views, anecdotes, and the like. It's only recently that some true studies have tried to prove this [1], but even then arguing for putting FB on the level of tobacco and guns is a strong claim to make off of minimal peer-reviewed evidence. We might as well toss Google + Amazon + Twitter into this same boat.
[1] https://hbr.org/2017/04/a-new-more-rigorous-study-confirms-t...
It's somewhat ironic you use this as an argument for good. I'm much like yourself in this scenario, so I'm not trying to take a moral high ground, but I can't say I truly believe this is enriching the relationships of people on either side.