Intentional neglect was the issue here. They had statistics and were aware of their negative influence by promoting bad things to susceptible people.

 Intentional neglect was the issue here. They had statistics and were aware of their negative influence by promoting bad things to susceptible people.
This would theoretically be no worse than McDonalds offering foods they know are bad while claiming “they’re good for you!” or schoolteachers turning a blind eye to the real impact of a bullying situation while saying, “Let boys be boys”, “there’s a few bad eggs in every batch, what can we do? nothing. that’s just nature at work.” repeatedly.
But Mark Z claimed last year to be on top of things – as he has done in previous hearings and press releases through the years.
But he hasn’t. He gave the critics a pat on the head and did what he wanted anyway. That’s power and he has it.
===
Looking the other way while you know what’s happening is enabling with a thin veneer of deniability
==
They do that so they can say LOOK WE’RE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT
But they’re not.
Their aggressive banhammers are all for show.
  • ===
    Why would society need a tearing apart and why is it ok that Facebook may be playing a part in it?
    What if some of us DON’T want society tearing apart, see that Facebook is playing a preventable role in tearing society apart: is it unreasonable to request assistance from a powerful societal influence in that goal?
    ===

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


two × = 8

Leave a Reply