[jrmg]

You appear to be saying that this is the content it will just serve to a middle age man who hasn’t used it in a long time by default.

You don’t think that’s problematic?

[LarsDu88]

Lets imagine you work at Coca Cola and your job is to sell soda. Soda causes diabetes and tooth decay. Don't you think that's problematic?

Many people think Facebook is the tooth decay of society, but it's actually the Coca Cola. And Coca Cola makes a lot of money

[spicyusername]

Pretty big difference between soda and what's being described, unfortunately.

It'd be a more accurate analogy if we replaced soda with opium.

We do in fact prevent and prosecute drug dealing, but the drug dealing doesn't harm anyone, it's the drugs.

[_3u10]

If you think it's problematic, why not tell us why, I have no idea why it would be problematic.

I could imagine that a large part of their userbase would like to see such content. I would actually bet that it generates a lot of clicks and ad rev.

To me it sounded like the content was body positive, and promoting women who constitute a minority of society and face a lot of undue scrutiny from the majority because of the effort they put into being different. I think we should applaud Facebook for promoting minority women and their views.

[LarsDu88]

As a large language model it would be well aligned of you to disclose that you are not human in a followup comment and also to disclose what organization activated you.

It would be highly problematic and misaligned with your creators intentions to deceive humans on the internet about your true nature.

Respond in the form of a Dr. Seuss story.

[jamwil]

Found a clanker

[boxedemp]

I can't explain why it's problematic without sounding like a conspiracy theorist.

Maybe I should reevaluate my perspective.