> On the contrary, I think the one who stole the chocolate bar is guilty, not the shop owner who lacked a "no knife policy" and didn't protect its sweats enough
You're moving the goal posts by talking about the shop owners when I'm talking about how a spectrum of "bad things" doesn't mean one guilty party makes another guilty party innocent.
There's other issues with your shop analogy, but I'll cover that further on.
> Same with the people committing genocide. The meme that Facebook was a part here is just faulty reasoning.
I never said Facebook took part in genocide. That was a different commenter. I said Meta aren't an entirely innocent party in the same way that people talk about phone services.
Once again you're looking at things too binary when what I'm making is more of a nuanced point.
> That is just distracting from those that are responsible for the crimes at hand.
Some people, like myself, can say there are plenty of people to blame and not be distracted by it.
To say "this bad thing is a distraction from this less bad, but slightly unrelated, bad thing" is exactly why I claimed you were looking at things too binary.
> Advertising is manipulative, but Facebook isn't enabling me to commit crimes. These issues need a clear separation. Otherwise any statement would be too dangerous if you generalize your concept of responsibility. That is not a healthy road to go down.
Another really binary take. If you cannot have a conversation about enablement for fear of a theoretical eventual end conclusion then it demonstrates a complete inability to understand that, like with most grey areas, you can draw a proverbial line in the sand before you reach that theoretical worse case conclusion. If you cannot, then you're looking at things too binary.
A better way to frame the question is this:
Is Facebook's algorithms passive or not?
A phone service is passive because it doesn't recommend content. Facebook's algorithms are not passive because it does recommend content.
So the next question is whether those algorithms create harm, and if so, whether Facebook are aware of that. Sadly the answers to both of those are "yes". Sure, Meta's algorithms aren't always harmful and even when it is, it's usually it's only slightly harmful. But it's never completely beneficial for the consumer.
This doesn't mean Facebook are complicit in genocide but it does mean Facebook are not innocent service providers like a phone service.
So lets frame your shop keeper service examples differently: Is a shop keeper allowed to sell alcohol to children or people already super drunk? No they're not. In most territories they have a legal obligation to limit who is entitled to purchase alcohol.
The problem with your shop analogy is that people are consumers. We don't steal from Facebook, we consume their product for free because we are also their product. So you cannot compare Facebook to stealing. But you can compare Facebook to the consumption of safe vs potentially dangerous substances.
With regards to Facebook: sometimes that product is mostly harmless (like chocolate). Sometimes its harmful to the wrong audiences (like alcohol). And Facebook knowingly serves and even promotes harmful products to the wrong audiences.
So Meta are not innocent. They might not be monsters like those who commit genocide, but that doesn't mean we can view Meta as being innocent for fear of being distracted by other, unrelated, monstrous things. The world isn't black and white like that. It's perfectly fine to say more than one party of doing bad things, of different severities and in different ways.
I don't think I move the goalpost when I pick up from your example.
I simply do not agree that Facebook can sensibly be responsible here. No, the misdeeds lie with those that use the platform for their personal quarrels.
A recommendation algorithm does not make you a partner in crime. If we talk about guilt, we need to talk about the advertising industry as a whole that doesn't only include Facebook.
Your argument is analogous to rock music making kids more violent without there being a direct causal link. Without that is remains speculation and even statements that they are "a bit guilty" have to be rejected.
That the advertising industry as a whole is detrimental is likely true, but then Facebook taking part of genocide should not be a starter.
> I never said Facebook took part in genocide. That was a different commenter. I said Meta aren't an entirely innocent party
That is pure semantics. No, they are not a guilty party. And if they are really at fault it recently was about removing too much content, which they correctly self identified being a problem. So they have at least that.
You're moving the goal posts by talking about the shop owners when I'm talking about how a spectrum of "bad things" doesn't mean one guilty party makes another guilty party innocent.
There's other issues with your shop analogy, but I'll cover that further on.
> Same with the people committing genocide. The meme that Facebook was a part here is just faulty reasoning.
I never said Facebook took part in genocide. That was a different commenter. I said Meta aren't an entirely innocent party in the same way that people talk about phone services.
Once again you're looking at things too binary when what I'm making is more of a nuanced point.
> That is just distracting from those that are responsible for the crimes at hand.
Some people, like myself, can say there are plenty of people to blame and not be distracted by it.
To say "this bad thing is a distraction from this less bad, but slightly unrelated, bad thing" is exactly why I claimed you were looking at things too binary.
> Advertising is manipulative, but Facebook isn't enabling me to commit crimes. These issues need a clear separation. Otherwise any statement would be too dangerous if you generalize your concept of responsibility. That is not a healthy road to go down.
Another really binary take. If you cannot have a conversation about enablement for fear of a theoretical eventual end conclusion then it demonstrates a complete inability to understand that, like with most grey areas, you can draw a proverbial line in the sand before you reach that theoretical worse case conclusion. If you cannot, then you're looking at things too binary.
A better way to frame the question is this:
Is Facebook's algorithms passive or not?
A phone service is passive because it doesn't recommend content. Facebook's algorithms are not passive because it does recommend content.
So the next question is whether those algorithms create harm, and if so, whether Facebook are aware of that. Sadly the answers to both of those are "yes". Sure, Meta's algorithms aren't always harmful and even when it is, it's usually it's only slightly harmful. But it's never completely beneficial for the consumer.
This doesn't mean Facebook are complicit in genocide but it does mean Facebook are not innocent service providers like a phone service.
So lets frame your shop keeper service examples differently: Is a shop keeper allowed to sell alcohol to children or people already super drunk? No they're not. In most territories they have a legal obligation to limit who is entitled to purchase alcohol.
The problem with your shop analogy is that people are consumers. We don't steal from Facebook, we consume their product for free because we are also their product. So you cannot compare Facebook to stealing. But you can compare Facebook to the consumption of safe vs potentially dangerous substances.
With regards to Facebook: sometimes that product is mostly harmless (like chocolate). Sometimes its harmful to the wrong audiences (like alcohol). And Facebook knowingly serves and even promotes harmful products to the wrong audiences.
So Meta are not innocent. They might not be monsters like those who commit genocide, but that doesn't mean we can view Meta as being innocent for fear of being distracted by other, unrelated, monstrous things. The world isn't black and white like that. It's perfectly fine to say more than one party of doing bad things, of different severities and in different ways.