I think part of the problem for current graduate students (well, for the last generation or so) is that while the past idea / lore of graduate school modeled by mentors (professors, parents) was built on a growing post-war pyramid of faculty jobs and research opportunities, now it has become a saturated pyramid in many fields. So then students find themselves not competing easily for a growing number of jobs, but waiting to see which senior professor retires or dies and opens up a spot. Or else leave for industry. And woe to those who go into fields where there is not a lot of industry to exit to.

You've probably heard in your field of the old professors who got a faculty job after one postdoc, or even out of grad school? Well, those days of yore are long gone. And don't think that it was just because they were incredibly smart (well, some of course were) but that the field had ripe jobs for them to fill. Do you see some colleagues going to "odd" countries for positions lately? It's where the money is -- we just didn't realize in the past it actually was tied to where the money was (hidden in the form of jobs).

Anyway, also now it has almost become a baseline credential for certain jobs or advancement (like college), further filling up the pipeline with competitors for those jobs.

Don't get me wrong, for some people graduate school can be great, a great time to explore and satisfy an intellect that wants to gather and contribute to knowledge. But for others, the idea of graduate school is no longer what it was. You're in for a multiple-postdoc, where-is-this-going-on-the-faculty-track questioned existence, seemingly at the whim of advisors who hardly have time to spend on helping your career.

Of course, it varies by field. Chemical engineering, probably ok no matter how relatively bad it seems. Astronomy? Not so much. Biology? Better exits, but you're also competing against everyone who can afford a hot plate and PCR rig. Computer science / ML? Your competition is every student in China who has access to a couple hundred hours of GPU time. (exaggerating a bit of course)

Just go into it knowing the situation.

I've been framing this whole thing as a universal property of human society and it seems to fit pretty well for me.

Outrage attracts attention in all group interactions. I can't think of a single large scale group forum where this isn't true. It's integral to an absurd degree in our news cycle. Howard Stern exploited this property in his rise to fame. It's a core element in state propaganda, well documented throughout human history.

I'm old enough to remember when the internet was a lot more free - when there generally wasn't some parent corporation imposing content censorship on what you put on your homepage, or what you said on IRC. All of the complaints regarding Facebook were true of internet communications back then too (on the "sex trafficking" issue, compare to Craigslist of yore!)

The big difference seems to be there's an entity we can point a finger at now. Communications on Facebook aren't worse than what was on the internet two decades ago. In fact, they're far, far more clean and controlled.

What I look to is whether Facebook is more objectionable than alternative forms of communication, and I can't find any reason to believe that this is the case. Is twitter better? Is reddit? Is usenet? No.

So why does Facebook draw such ire?

Are people calling for controls on Facebook also calling for controls on self-published websites? On open communication systems like IRC or email? Where is the coherent moral philosophy regarding internet speech?

To be honest, my biggest concern when I read the news surrounding this issue is that most of the internet might not be old enough to remember what it means to have a truly free platform, unencumbered by moralizing. Why are people begging for more controls?