[Qi_]

The author seems to be filled with a sense of “knight-in-shining-armor-ism.” If Facebook’s actions really are a problem to most people, then most people would stop using it.

He calls Zuckerberg a "pope-emperor" of Facebook's users, but that's because the users choose to give him power. If the users stop choosing to give him power, he loses it.

[Barrin92]

>If Facebook’s actions really are a problem to most people, then most people would stop using it

what do you call this argument, best of all worlds-ism? So a priori any institution that persists is beneficial to its constituents merely because it continues to exist? Do concepts like power and dependence exist in the kind of worldview that produces these arguments?

[rst]

There's an actual name for it -- Panglossianism -- named for Dr. Pangloss, the tutor in Voltaire's Candide who keeps insisting, despite catastrophically mounting evidence, that "all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds." (This was a deliberate parody of moral philosphy written by some of Voltaire's 18th-century contemporaries, most notably Leibniz.)

[the-dude]

Sounds as a just-world to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

[Qi_]

My argument is based on free-market economics. The users/customers seem to not care enough to put their time and money elsewhere.

[joshgel]

Like cigarettes? I have no sense of whether FB is physically addictive like smoking.

But, if a company directly contributes to decline in civil discourse and harms democracy, and thereby harms the users, then isn't it a government role to step in? And isn't this the governments role even if users can't see the harm at the micro-level of their daily interactions with the company? I guess that is the argument at least. Really its a balance between values: individual freedom and the collective good.

[sokoloff]

> if a company directly contributes to decline in civil discourse and harms democracy, and thereby harms the users, then isn't it a government role to step in?

The chief problem here is “who decides?” If a government in power is being undermined, they have incredibly strong incentives to determine that those undermining actions are “harmful to democracy” (rather than merely harmful to their party). (I think we could point to many examples in US politics in the last 5 years where “this is bad for my party” is cast as “this is bad for democracy!”)

Which is why I think that, of all the speech that must be protected, political speech is of the highest criticality to protect. (And that claims by the government or strongly politically aligned citizens that ‘X is bad for democracy’ should also be viewed with a healthy amount of skepticism.)

[cute_boi]

Facebook is addictive tbh. I heard they hired some prominent psychologist to make it more addictive.

My mother is surely addicted to facebook. She knows all data implications but she enjoys getting likes/shares etc. And fake news etc which is intentionally specious make the platform even more enjoyable.

I can't tell her to stop facebook and I am sure it is harming her right?

Yes this is government role but as with every government in democracy most of them are vested for short term profits and company like facebook lobbies a lot. We know facebook pushes millions of dollar in lobby so why would government solve it? Also facebook also provides sweet taxes to government.

[dcow]

Since when is “most people don’t speak up so it’s obviously okay” a healthy way to determine whether anything should be legal or not?

Where is the knite-in-shining-armor-ism? What even is that? Doctorow is asking for for us to build a society where we don't take a company on their word that they will do right by users because he cites multiple examples where a company leader charged as the steward of software integral to peoples’ lives has said they will and then about faced to chase profits. There’s clearly something worth discussing here… Remember how nice and interoperable chat was before Google killed xmpp?

[echelon]

> If Facebook’s actions really are a problem to most people, then most people would stop using it.

Just like sugary soda, loot crates, cigarettes, and opium then? Companies design products that are bad for people all the time.

> Zuck: they “trust me”

> Zuck: dumb fucks

This was said after his AOL hacking days [1], so he already had a certain predisposition towards "ordinary people".

Given that his history and his present behavior aren't much different, it seems he hasn't changed much. He designs products to extract from people.

[1] https://qf0.github.io/blog/2020/01/28/Mark-Zuckerberg-was-a-...

[dresdenfire]

Have you thought how old he was when he said this? I am sure you never did anything stupid as a teenager.

[shukantpal]

I don’t see your counter argument. People eat sugar because they want to. If they didn’t like it, they wouldn’t eat sugar and no one is forcing them to.

[ISL]

By that measure, most of those who live under oppressive dictators think their leaders are okay. If not, "they would just rise up and replace them".

Doctorow's piece here reads to me as a call for viable alternatives. The prose attempts to advance a number of his favored alternatives, which makes it a little confusing.

To me, I believe we are headed toward a world where social media operates via an open API, like email. The road between here and there will be rocky.

[janmo]

"If Facebook’s actions really are a problem to most people, then most people would stop using it."

No. Because all your friends are on Facebook. And by buying out all the serious competition (Whats App, Instagram) they have guaranteed a monopolistic position. Even if you move to another place, if will grow too big, odds are it will end up being acquired by FB.

[simonh]

Arguably facebook provides useful, valuable services and also causes some harm. Lets suppose the good it does outweighs the harm. That's not a good argument to simply accept the harm it does. The benefits and harm are not an inextricably linked package, it should be possible to mitigate the harm without eliminating the benefits Facebook provides to people.

[quantified]

The nature of addiction (etymologically, “without-say-ism”) is that the problem is most felt by those who can’t stop using it.

We can turn this to a giant regulate-tech topic but the source complaint, simple enough, was a desire to have the feed consume less of life’s attention and be more worthy of what attention he was giving it.