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.
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.
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.
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.
What is the end goal? To make it impossible for crazy people to be heard online? Wouldn't a better goal be to educate ourselves on how to ignore the crazies and focus on reliable sources?
Do you believe QAnon has gone from a 4chan meme to a political movement which has gained the support of the President and seats in Congress because no rational adult or contributing member of society has ever fallen prey to them?
Human beings are not rational animals, human beings are emotional animals, we're great apes hardwired for paredolia and bigotry because it helped us survive the tall grasses of the Savannah a hundred thousand years ago. The assumption you and others like you make, that given a free (as in unregulated) market of ideas, rationality and truth will always win out, is as naive as the belief that ethics and quality always win in free market capitalism. Bad actors always dominate unless some external regulating force prevents them from doing so.
>What is the end goal? To make it impossible for crazy people to be heard online? Wouldn't a better goal be to educate ourselves on how to ignore the crazies and focus on reliable sources?
False dichotomy - we can do both. It is impossible to effectively educate ourselves or anyone else in an environment in which it is also impossible to distinguish good from bad information, or even attempt to do so, without fear of "censorship". We don't need to pretend Joe Rogan and Alex Jones are sources of truth on par with the BBC and Al Jazeera, or that evolution and the Book of Genesis are equally valid attempts to describe the natural world, or that QAnon represents a legitimate framework of political and social criticism, merely for the sake of allowing controversy, in the false belief that controversy is equivalent to freedom.