this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
62 points (84.4% liked)

Technology

58122 readers
3804 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 month ago

Yes

Moving on

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago

Err...what's the point of this 6 year old article, OP? Are there any specific issues about it that make it relevant now or that you wish to discuss? If so, if would help if you'd put them in the post.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

While this article might be old as fuck, it's still relevant IMO.

Morally speaking I'd say that it is a duty, but a weak one, since it depends on:

  1. how responsible the person can be held for condoning what the platform does, based on what the person is attested to know about its role on political and social manipulation. Or, you know, genocides.
  2. how much undue social/professional harm the person would cause themself, by leaving the platform. Because people there aren't just partners, but also victims of that platform.
  3. their direct role on Facebook's misdeeds. Someone who passively checks the news there is simply not on the same level as, for example, people spreading misinformation.
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The United Nations has blamed Facebook for the dissemination of hate speech against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar that resulted in their ethnic cleansing.

This influence on others is known as a (positive) network effect, where increased numbers of people improve the value of a product.

In doing so, one could be helping Facebook to refine its algorithms so that it can better single out specific individuals for certain purposes, some of which could be as nefarious as those of Cambridge Analytica.

For those of us who do not engage in such objectionable behavior, it is helpful to consider whether Facebook has crossed certain moral “red lines,” entering the realm of outright wickedness.

Likewise, Facebook would have crossed a red line if it had intentionally assisted in the dissemination of hate speech in Myanmar.

The recent worrisome revelation that Facebook hired an opposition-research firm that attempted to discredit protesters by claiming that they were agents of the financier George Soros is not encouraging.


The original article contains 997 words, the summary contains 162 words. Saved 84%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Unfortunately Facebook is where I still get a lot of my business.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, but there may be an ethical one, depending on your ethical standards.

That said, I highly recommend you leave Facebook. I did many years ago, and have decided to never touch Meta products again. I suggest you do the same, not because of a moral or ethical obligation, but because you dislike the platform.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think you could make a case for a moral basis, provided your morality stems from the "harm reduction" philosophy.

For my part, privacy was my biggest concern. I was tired of being "the product" and being fed to the ragebait algorithm with no say in how my data got used (and the fact that you can't trust that opting out will be respected). Leaving that abusive relationship was one of the best decisions I ever made, and everybody else would be wise to do the same.

ETA: I'm even hesitant to follow a Threads account via Mastodon, because I can't trust that Zuck won't use that link as an open invitation to gobble up all my data again.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I have a facebook account. I only use it for very narrow purposes. my condo association informally discusses things there and as connection point in case someone I know does not otherwise know my current email or such. like a third cousin or something who I met a few times at weddings/funerals. What I don't get is why folks can't not use something. I have some others that I made just to sorta stake my name but I only really interact on non real name using stuff because F that creepiness.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I don't know if it's a duty but it is a damn good idea and has been for awhile now. I left Facebook in 2014 and I can't even imagine how much worse the last 10 years would have been for me if I'd been part of that shit show.

And for those paying attention, the last 10 years have not exactly been a blast anyway.