[gizmo385]

What exactly is the target of the comparison here? Facebooks existence? Its behavior? And whatever that thing is, to be clear, you are comparing it to the crimes against humanity committed by the nazis during world war 2? Regardless of whether you like or dislike Facebook, that comparison seems patently absurd.

[g-b-r]

It for example faciliated a genocide, the rise or confirmation of authoritarian and bloody regimes, and kept consciously doing it if you read the article.

The reference to Nuremberg was more for an example of an international trial than for the nazis, although faciliting a smaller scale genocide does somehow seem to have a relationship with the nazis...

Given the havoc they willingly caused to nations worldwide, an international trial for Zuckerberg and the other responsibles does not seem so inconceivable to me...

And that's not considering a lot of other probably less important things they did

[cultureswitch]

How did Facebook facilitate a genocide? Did they provide material support? Did they make an editorial decision to stoke genocidal messages? It doesn't appear any of that is the case. It appears Facebook was used as a tool of communication by people who wanted to commit a genocide. These people also used Android and Windows (and countless other products), which technically also could censor speech in their products. Why aren't you saying they should be put on trial too?

Is your argument that Facebook as a whole is specifically engineered to incite tribal violence, and so should be banned on the same basis as radar scanners? Because in that case I think you have an argument to make which isn't completely incoherent.