The last 1.75 fuckin' years have in part been because of the fact journalists and politicians live on twitter. These dudes think pleasing twitter mobs is more important than actual real life people.
> I'm confused by the laser focus on FB all of a sudden.
You have to look at in the context of the 2016 election. Once it was discovered that the winning team utilized Facebook in a way the losing team had no concept of (or more likely they simply didn’t use said concept as effectively), Facebook has been singled out and targeted by most media outlets for being evil and in need of strict government regulations, to protect the children and democracy and society, among other things.
Yes, FB had negative press prior. But this was the clear turning point in press coverage and governmental oversight and it was like a light switch.
I can’t say I’m disappointed in the slightest about that, or that they’re wrong. I despise Facebook. But I do find the reasoning behind this all a very disturbing extension of the “cancel culture” we’re in today. The establishment doesn’t like not having a monopoly on the spread of information, and it is fighting back.
Your reasons are valid but way too U.S.-centric for me. I look at FB (the global company) in a global context and am shocked and disgusted at their "profits yes, responsibility no thanks" approach in, say, most non-English speaking countries around the World.
Because that’s too obvious and also Facebook’s userbase’s ideologies lean the opposite direction from the establishment, and Facebook is their best tool for sharing information that happens to run counter to what the establishment (media, government, etc) finds to be ideal.
Besides, there are only a few sites that most people ever visit. The internet is “small” now. Tackle the biggest threat, the rest will fall in line - likely with glee since they already enforce pro-establishment censorship policies as it is. Twitter, for example.
Its people that are the problem, they are just using Facebook as a scapegoat. No matter what they do, they(FB) will get attacked by 50% of the country ... Remove GOP voices spreading crazy shit .. They are suddenly suppressing political voices(censorship). Leave the content up and suddenly Facebook is responsible for domestic terrorist attacks. Honestly Facebook has literally been begging congress to regulate them. The problem isn't Facebook its that congress refuses to do it job and now Americans expect a private company to regulate speech for nearly every country FB operates in.
I disagree to a certain extent. The business model of adtech + social media creates an especially toxic product that brings out the worst in people, and puts vitriolic content in front of more eyeballs because that's what drives engagement.
If FB's business model were significantly different and didn't depend on maximizing eyeballs-on-screens time, and didn't depend on selling the ability to manipulate people's emotions at scale, the product might be less toxic.
In summary, I think it's a cop-out to just say "humans bad." Yes, but the systems we create and participate in can and do influence human behavior in different ways. Facebook wouldn't be quite so toxic if there wasn't money to be made from the toxicity.
I agree. The modern internet is just a reflection of how people want to use the internet, with all the good and bad that comes with that. I guess it's too bad the utopian dreams of the 90s didn't pan out, but what did people really expect once society moved online?
As a European, I look at FB in a global context, i.e. less U.S.-centric, and am shocked and disgusted for their "profits yes, responsibility no thanks" approach in, say, non-English speaking countries around the World.
Why isn't that the governments in those countries responsibility? Why should Facebook even be allowed to enforce Western culture(values) onto non-western countries.
Here in Russia our local social networks are more popular than FB but I'd say they're way more toxic than FB. Some years ago it was very easy to find child porn with a few clicks. At least there's some conversation in the US going on the harmful effects of social networks; here no one cares. People in countries where FB is the only option simply don't have anything to compare it to; they can't know it's a pretty decent social network, compared to some.
If you think the laser focus happened "all of a sudden" I believe you haven't been paying enough attention. ;) I think outside of the U.S. there has been more concern about FB's awful track record for years by now.
But to answer your quest: For me it's their wish to be the biggest dog on Earth, aiming to be "everyone's internet" (especially in poorer, non-western nations) while at the same time wilfully ignoring the responsibilities that come with it.
Most other players are also bad, I guess, but so far not many of them are able to do that. much. damage. to society while putting profits first no matter the cost, while trying to game the system no matter the cost, while scorching the Earth to stave off perceived competition, while assuming they're above the law.
I'm certain that if Twitter, Telegram, Baidu, VK et al are having their own skeletons in the closet but they're not in the spotlight as much (yet).
I forgot to add ruining the "fabric" of society, as the media and politicians love to say about whatever X is doing that. I have no idea what the "fabric" of society is supposed to be. But I'm pretty sure it was already "ruined" by tv, rock & roll and video games.
