I don't agree with the premise that people using your platform to post hate or incite violence makes you an 'active part' in genocide in an even remotely similar fashion to Shell actively funding the militant groups engaging in genocide.
It is more akin to a paper company being blamed for the writings on it or a phone company being blamed because the orders to invade were sent over text message.
Very interesting attempt to gain causality through internet blackout, but I'm not really convinced by a study that provides no evidence that they pre-registered their analysis.
The fact that Facebook algorithms intentionally promotes hostilities as a side effect of its mission to every increase engagement doesn’t exactly make Meta passive like a phone service.
It’s even more damning for Meta when you consider just how insidious their tactics are to get people hooked on their platform.
They might not be selling the guns nor pulling the triggers, but they’re not exactly innocent either.
That is still not the fault of Facebook. It is the fault of people writing these comment and those that respond to them and want to kill other people. That they now have a common platform of communication is a fact everyone needs to adapt to.
You might level the criticism against the advertising industry. This is a legislative issue.
To accuse Facebook to help a genocide is just distracting from the guilt of those that attempt genocide.
You're looking at things too binary. It's not an "either / or" but instead a spectrum of guilt.
Your argument is akin to saying someone who stole a chocolate bar isn't a criminal because they weren't carrying a knife. Or someone else who stole a wallet at knife point isn't a criminal because they didn't kill their victim. Or that a murderer isn't a criminal because they didn't commit genocide.
There's always going to be instances where some bad things are worse than other bad things. But that doesn't mean that the less-worse bad things aren't also themselves bad.
Meta built their platform to be addictive and one of the negative consequences of constantly pursuing "engagement" is that breads negative interactions. And this was a very intentional move on Meta's part. So they're not innocent. They're just not literal murderers.
It is not at all binary, it is about criminal responsibility.
On the contrary, I think the one who stole the chocolate bar is guilty, not the shop owner who lacked a "no knife policy" and didn't protect its sweats enough. Or more fitting advertised them too much. The shop owner is just innocent in your example and the blame lies solely on the one who stole. Same with the people committing genocide. The meme that Facebook was a part here is just faulty reasoning.
The "stochastic terrorism" crowd comes to mind, who seem to create a new olympic discipline of reaching. They too like to accuse platforms that were used to communicate. That is just distracting from those that are responsible for the crimes at hand. If there hadn't been a Facebook, they would have used Twitter or any other social media platform.
Advertising is manipulative, but Facebook isn't enabling me to commit crimes. These issues need a clear separation. Otherwise any statement would be too dangerous if you generalize your concept of responsibility. That is not a healthy road to go down.
> On the contrary, I think the one who stole the chocolate bar is guilty, not the shop owner who lacked a "no knife policy" and didn't protect its sweats enough
You're moving the goal posts by talking about the shop owners when I'm talking about how a spectrum of "bad things" doesn't mean one guilty party makes another guilty party innocent.
There's other issues with your shop analogy, but I'll cover that further on.
> Same with the people committing genocide. The meme that Facebook was a part here is just faulty reasoning.
I never said Facebook took part in genocide. That was a different commenter. I said Meta aren't an entirely innocent party in the same way that people talk about phone services.
Once again you're looking at things too binary when what I'm making is more of a nuanced point.
> That is just distracting from those that are responsible for the crimes at hand.
Some people, like myself, can say there are plenty of people to blame and not be distracted by it.
To say "this bad thing is a distraction from this less bad, but slightly unrelated, bad thing" is exactly why I claimed you were looking at things too binary.
> Advertising is manipulative, but Facebook isn't enabling me to commit crimes. These issues need a clear separation. Otherwise any statement would be too dangerous if you generalize your concept of responsibility. That is not a healthy road to go down.
Another really binary take. If you cannot have a conversation about enablement for fear of a theoretical eventual end conclusion then it demonstrates a complete inability to understand that, like with most grey areas, you can draw a proverbial line in the sand before you reach that theoretical worse case conclusion. If you cannot, then you're looking at things too binary.
A better way to frame the question is this:
Is Facebook's algorithms passive or not?
A phone service is passive because it doesn't recommend content. Facebook's algorithms are not passive because it does recommend content.
So the next question is whether those algorithms create harm, and if so, whether Facebook are aware of that. Sadly the answers to both of those are "yes". Sure, Meta's algorithms aren't always harmful and even when it is, it's usually it's only slightly harmful. But it's never completely beneficial for the consumer.
This doesn't mean Facebook are complicit in genocide but it does mean Facebook are not innocent service providers like a phone service.
So lets frame your shop keeper service examples differently: Is a shop keeper allowed to sell alcohol to children or people already super drunk? No they're not. In most territories they have a legal obligation to limit who is entitled to purchase alcohol.
The problem with your shop analogy is that people are consumers. We don't steal from Facebook, we consume their product for free because we are also their product. So you cannot compare Facebook to stealing. But you can compare Facebook to the consumption of safe vs potentially dangerous substances.
With regards to Facebook: sometimes that product is mostly harmless (like chocolate). Sometimes its harmful to the wrong audiences (like alcohol). And Facebook knowingly serves and even promotes harmful products to the wrong audiences.
So Meta are not innocent. They might not be monsters like those who commit genocide, but that doesn't mean we can view Meta as being innocent for fear of being distracted by other, unrelated, monstrous things. The world isn't black and white like that. It's perfectly fine to say more than one party of doing bad things, of different severities and in different ways.
I don't think I move the goalpost when I pick up from your example.
I simply do not agree that Facebook can sensibly be responsible here. No, the misdeeds lie with those that use the platform for their personal quarrels.
A recommendation algorithm does not make you a partner in crime. If we talk about guilt, we need to talk about the advertising industry as a whole that doesn't only include Facebook.
Your argument is analogous to rock music making kids more violent without there being a direct causal link. Without that is remains speculation and even statements that they are "a bit guilty" have to be rejected.
That the advertising industry as a whole is detrimental is likely true, but then Facebook taking part of genocide should not be a starter.
> I never said Facebook took part in genocide. That was a different commenter. I said Meta aren't an entirely innocent party
That is pure semantics. No, they are not a guilty party. And if they are really at fault it recently was about removing too much content, which they correctly self identified being a problem. So they have at least that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
It is also responsible for a rise in hate crimes:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082972