[intopieces]

Every time you use Facebook, see an advertisement there, or click it, every time you share content on Facebook and get others to engage with that platform, you are contributing to a platform that is directly responsible for human psychological harm, in many different ways.

Same for Twitter, and for Reddit, and Instagram... and probably TikTok.

I don’t believe the use of these platforms can be considered ethical.

[falcrist]

Does this logic also apply to commenting on hacker news? Or is it specifically the platforms you mentioned?

What specifically is the reason you consider those particular platforms to be unethical, and what is the solution.

It's not enough to say "social media bad". You can say that about anything including the internet as a whole. We need the reasons it's bad and solutions.

[intopieces]

> What specifically is the reason you consider those particular platforms to be unethical, and what is the solution.

These platforms are so large that they require hundreds of thousands of moderators in order to remove vile, illegal content, causing trauma for a vast underclass of foreign workers.

Here’s a few solutions:

Limit the number of people that a person can be friends with to 150, the Dunbar number.

Restrict the posting of photos to those which have been identified as having you or your friends in the picture, or no humans at all. Require permission from all human participants to post.

Charge a fee for access.

[ativzzz]

I think this is pushing it a bit. By similar logic, paying taxes to, or simply being a member of the US (or almost any country) is contributing to a platform that is directly responsible for human harm.

[intopieces]

>paying taxes to, or simply being a member of the US (or almost any country) is contributing to a platform that is directly responsible for human harm.

I agree with that. But I also assert that people have an ethical obligation to opt-out of systems that cause harm when / if they are able, or at least advocate to change them.

I don't have the ability to change Facebook. But I have the ability to opt out of it, though my actions on the Internet, and the ability to advocate for others to do the same. So, here I am.

[Kiro]

You are commenting on one of those platforms right now.

[intopieces]

HackerNews is a limited-focus link aggregation and comment platform. It doesn't require the kind of moderation that larger scale, broad-focus social media platforms do.

I don't envy the work that Dan and Scott have to do in the slightest, but I don't think they'll end up with PTSD from it. At least, that's what I gathered when I read "The Lonely Work of Moderating Hacker News"[0], especially this description of it: "Pressed to describe Hacker News, they do so by means of extravagant, sometimes tender metaphors: the site is a “social ecosystem,” a “hall of mirrors,” a “public park or garden,” a “fractal tree."

[0]http://archive.is/bbzan

[twblalock]

This argument applies to any platform that lets users upload videos. There is nothing wrong with that kind of site in itself.

[justanotheranon]

social media is a mirror--you see what you want in it. for every horrifying or hyperviolent act or outrageous scandal, you can find the most joyous and beautiful depiction.

have you ever seen foxes laughing? they sound like babies. without social media, i never would have known that, nor experienced one minute of happiness while watching it.

https://twitter.com/mollyfprince/status/1277601602866761729