Facebook profits smeared with blood
Facebook made a $7bn profit in the last quarter of 2018 alone. 
It's perhaps no surprise that given the vast scale of these profits, they might not want to change what they are doing. But what they are doing, at least in part, encourages mass killing.
I refer partly to Facebook Livestream, which has clearly now become a major tool in the hands of terrorists everywhere and a big draw for the deranged and the disordered. Everything from child abuse to mass murder is now available as a live feed. Facebook are now directly contributing to making the world more violent, hateful and scary.
The founder and boss, Mark Zuckerberg, continues to refuse to engage.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/20/mark-zuckerberg-four-days-on-your-silence-on-christchurch-is-deafening
In some countries, such as India and Myanmar, something much more like genocide has been encouraged using Facebook as the organising tool, with very little reaction from the company.
It is increasingly clear that drastic steps need to be taken to reign this new evil social media force in, because the psuedo-libertarian-justified oligarchs making mountainous profits from it won't.
Should Facebook...
Switch off Livestreaming until it can be made more socially acceptable?
Be split up as a monopoly?
Face sanctions or huge fines?
Be prosecuted for causing killings?
Or is it fine and no action should be taken?
It's perhaps no surprise that given the vast scale of these profits, they might not want to change what they are doing. But what they are doing, at least in part, encourages mass killing.
I refer partly to Facebook Livestream, which has clearly now become a major tool in the hands of terrorists everywhere and a big draw for the deranged and the disordered. Everything from child abuse to mass murder is now available as a live feed. Facebook are now directly contributing to making the world more violent, hateful and scary.
The founder and boss, Mark Zuckerberg, continues to refuse to engage.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/20/mark-zuckerberg-four-days-on-your-silence-on-christchurch-is-deafening
In some countries, such as India and Myanmar, something much more like genocide has been encouraged using Facebook as the organising tool, with very little reaction from the company.
It is increasingly clear that drastic steps need to be taken to reign this new evil social media force in, because the psuedo-libertarian-justified oligarchs making mountainous profits from it won't.
Should Facebook...
Switch off Livestreaming until it can be made more socially acceptable?
Be split up as a monopoly?
Face sanctions or huge fines?
Be prosecuted for causing killings?
Or is it fine and no action should be taken?
Scroll to see replies
Is this a troll post?
I think that you should read 1984 and keep reading it over and over again until you figure out why... 
Original post by Decahedron
Is this a troll post?
The classic question regarding FoS's threads. Certainly designed to wind up.
Original post by Notoriety
The classic question regarding FoS's threads. Certainly designed to wind up.
They don't wind me up, just leave me utterly perplexed
Original post by EU-Invader
I think that you should read 1984 and keep reading it over and over again until you figure out why...
You're 100% missing the point. Facebook only pretend to be a libertarian force. In fact, they are the new authorities. So in 2084, it will be the successor to the Facebooks running Big Brother. In many ways, they already are.
Original post by Wōden
So if a terrorist group organised it's attacks with handwritten letters, Royal Mail should be held responsible for causing terrorism? Perhaps the paper and pen companies should be held responsible too?
You're making the mistake of assuming they are a common carrier. They really aren't. They are the world's largest publisher and advert carrier. Also, do you see the Royal Mail distributing leaflets that incite genocide?
Original post by Fullofsurprises
You're 100% missing the point. Facebook only pretend to be a libertarian force. In fact, they are the new authorities. So in 2084, it will be the successor to the Facebooks running Big Brother. In many ways, they already are.
Facebook isn't pretending to be libertarian.
Original post by EU-Invader
Facebook isn't pretending to be libertarian.
You need to read more. The whole basis of the main social media companies is an extremist interpretation of libertarianism.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
You need to read more. The whole basis of the main social media companies is an extremist interpretation of libertarianism.
Libertarians are for freedom of speech and meritocracy, the extreme censorship on Facebook mixed with racial and gender quotas and stalking is a very socialist thing.
You are beyond ridiculous.
Whatever happened to blaming the actual PERPETRATOR rather than every other single thing.
Whatever happened to blaming the actual PERPETRATOR rather than every other single thing.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by Andrew97
You are beyond ridiculous.
Whatever happened to blaming the actual PERPETRATOR rather than every other single thing.
Whatever happened to blaming the actual PERPETRATOR rather than every other single thing.
Of course I blame the perpetrator and his international far-right buddies and sympathisers. But are you saying it's sufficient to blame the perpetrator and that's that, one shouldn't be opposed to the mass-spreading of his message and further incitements to repeat his actions being comprehensively circulated by large corporations as part of their money-making activities?
Original post by Rakas21
While i am certainly wary of the market power Facebook has and its dominance, i do not believe that individuals using its technology to do harm warrant taking action against the technology rather than the individuals. Certainly when the technology is free.
It isn't a 'technology' in the abstract, like the 'internet' or 'video' - it's one of the largest corporations in the world and it needs to be reigned in. Individuals are one thing, facilitation to killing by one of our largest companies, quite another.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Of course I blame the perpetrator and his international far-right buddies and sympathisers. But are you saying it's sufficient to blame the perpetrator and that's that, one shouldn't be opposed to the mass-spreading of his message and further incitements to repeat his actions being comprehensively circulated by large corporations as part of their money-making activities?
Far more people will have heard about the story through the established media like television channels and newspapers, compared to the relatively small amount of people who saw the Facebook live stream before it was taken down.
Should the BBC be closed down for reporting the story?
Original post by jameswhughes
Far more people will have heard about the story through the established media like television channels and newspapers, compared to the relatively small amount of people who saw the Facebook live stream before it was taken down.
Should the BBC be closed down for reporting the story?
Should the BBC be closed down for reporting the story?
I am not talking about journalism. The BBC does not offer a self-controlled instant live feed service for any user to be shown globally. Facebook does and look at the results.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I am not talking about journalism. The BBC does not offer a self-controlled instant live feed service for any user to be shown globally. Facebook does and look at the results.
So what? Would people had survived had the attacker not been live-streaming?
If you're concerned about the spread of his message/intentions then the normal media has contributed to that far more than Facebook.
Original post by jameswhughes
So what? Would people had survived had the attacker not been live-streaming?
If you're concerned about the spread of his message/intentions then the normal media has contributed to that far more than Facebook.
If you're concerned about the spread of his message/intentions then the normal media has contributed to that far more than Facebook.
It's clear that this was planned with F/book L-stream in mind.
The normal media have not repeatedly distributed the full version to millions of unrecoverable locations.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
It's clear that this was planned with F/book L-stream in mind.
The normal media have not repeatedly distributed the full version to millions of unrecoverable locations.
The normal media have not repeatedly distributed the full version to millions of unrecoverable locations.
You have blood on your hands anytime you eat meat or buy animal products.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Possible blood in stool panicking
- Red blood cells help (anaemia?)
- How do you book an appointment with a NHS dermatologist?
- Irregular bowel movements and stomach ache
- Selling books
- Setting up a not-for-profit organisation (just me)
- GCSE English Literature AIC
- Revision resources
- Does having a cold sore mean you’ll get cervical cancer?
- Earning money in your own way is tough - advice?
- Why can't you use gel pens in gcse?
- Volunteering in my gap year
- Weird bowel movements - super stressed and anxious please give advice
- Messing around
- can someone give feedback on my eng lit essay?
- can someone give me feedback and help on my eng lit essay? (A level)
- Best means to deal with anxiety
- Primark Dress Code
- Pelvic inflammatory disease symptoms
- University of Exeter
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
