zlacker

>>aaronb+(OP)
There is no doubt that there's a lot wrong with social media, such as spreading fake information, privacy, etc...

Maybe they should have some king of regulation specific to them.

But I fail to see how making your product as addictive as you can, without breaking laws, is terrible. I mean, no one is forced to create a FB/TW/IG profile, as far as I know.

I'm not defending Social Networks, or saying that a case against them should not be made, I'm just saying that I can't get behind the "your product is too adictive" argument.

Just my two cents. Maybe I'm missing something right now that will force me to change my mind later.

>>kyrers+ke
To me, It’s not just that it’s addictive that is the problem, it’s that the addiction is accelerating the spread of misinformation and allows national/global hate groups to not only exist but flourish.

Many have suspected it for a long while but this testimony proves that Facebook profits from hate groups and the spread of misinformation. That’s not hyperbole, that’s now fact.

>>coryth+Rj
It has also accelerated the pace at which good information can spread. What happened to the idea of free-speech and countering bad-ideas with better ones?

Perhaps the real acceleration is in the ballooning expansion of who we consider a "hate-group" -- which seems to have no fixed definition and is thrown around rather cavalierly.

>>tux196+gm
>What happened to the idea of free-speech and countering bad-ideas with better ones?

Go on Twitter or Facebook, or 4chan, 8chan, Voat or wherever you can find these crazies, and try to engage them in rational debate, and convince them their ideas are bad and yours are better. Let us know how that turns out.