zlacker

If the original claim is that 'facebook is damaging to (and beyond) its users', then the response 'but it has _many_ users' isn't much of a defense..

>>hhmc+(OP)
I think the original claim is that "facebook is damaging to some users". You could say the same about salt. People still work in salt mines.

>>stickf+v7
I'm not really able to wrap my head around your argument.

If it's damaging to some percentage of users, having more users means it damages more people.

Is your argument that this is okay because some people also put their health at risk being salt miners?

>>stickf+v7
LMFAO...yeah, you could say the same about Heroin. And Heroin is actually damaging to users.

You can pick any random thing, compare it to any other random thing, and get similar or opposing results - or anything in between, because those things aren't correlated or comparable in any way. :P

>>ziddoa+Ov
Can you name something that is not damaging to someone? Excessive salt consumption is linked over a million annual deaths worldwide. Even water kills thousands of people per year (drowning).

If your rule is "we can't have things that may hurt some people" then you're going to live in a pretty bland world. Gonna be especially tough without water.

>>stickf+2Y
>Excessive salt consumption is linked over a million annual deaths worldwide. Even water kills thousands of people per year (drowning)

And we have people and organizations that try to reduce the amount of deaths from those things. Raising awareness, passing laws, etc.

>If your rule is "we can't have things that may hurt some people" then you're going to live in a pretty bland world.

I only asked for clarification on your argument. But, no, that's not my "rule". I just think that if we can reduce harm, it's nice to do that where possible.

>Gonna be especially tough without water.

Come on. Your whole last sentence is ridiculous. The poster questioned why someone would work at Facebook. That is not the equivalent of saying "we can't have things that may hurt some people" and it's so far removed from your water/drowning scenario that I can't tell if you're being serious.

>>ziddoa+N11
> The poster questioned why someone would work at Facebook.

I thought my answer was pretty easy to interpret, but I will spell it out: Because the vast majority of people who use Facebook enrich their lives with it.

Spelling it out even further: Just like Facebook employees, the people who work in salt mines, or build swimming pools, go to work each day because they think about the vast majority of people satisfied by their product, not about the small minority of people injured by it.

I don't work at Facebook, but if I did, the answer to "How do you sleep?" would be "Like a baby."

>>stickf+2Y
> Can you name something that is not damaging to someone?

Kind of a bad excuse to be honest. I do think the damage is exaggerated and at some point users are responsible for themselves and their media consumption and many are probably happy with that.

I don't use Facebook and in my county Whatsapp is sadly very widely spread and it is noticeable that people express concern about missing something if they don't install it.