The problem is these fucks want to have their cake and eat it too.
They want to hold a monopoly on online social interactions, which also means having a monopoly on dissemination and propagation of information. But they are simultaneously doing their damndest to avoid the social responsibility that comes with that power and control. (Fixing their algorithm means reducing engagement, therefore the line goes up less) And they are succeeding because all of our regulations around this type of thing are focused on the legacy model of print and broadcast media.
It’s the same thing that companies like Uber have been successfully doing: Carve out and control an important public service (on-demand personal transportation, in Uber’s case) and then shrug off the social responsibility by claiming that the regulations and protections that applied to the legacy model don’t apply to you for [waves hands in the air] some reason.
I don’t fully agree-- mainly because I see these actions coming from a desire to hoard money and power above all else. What we perceive as malevolence is just them literally not giving a shit.
It’s pretty much that Mad Men quote:
I feel bad for you.
I dont think about you at all.
Except replace “I feel bad for you” with “I think you’re evil”
It matters at some level because the way you go after sociopathic greed is different from.the way you go after true desire to harm. But is there a net difference for you and me…? Yeah not really.
When they make the conscious decision to do the thing that’s worse for their users because it makes them more money, that’s malevolence. Business decisions of that scale rarely happen by accident.
The problem is these fucks want to have their cake and eat it too.
They want to hold a monopoly on online social interactions, which also means having a monopoly on dissemination and propagation of information. But they are simultaneously doing their damndest to avoid the social responsibility that comes with that power and control. (Fixing their algorithm means reducing engagement, therefore the line goes up less) And they are succeeding because all of our regulations around this type of thing are focused on the legacy model of print and broadcast media.
It’s the same thing that companies like Uber have been successfully doing: Carve out and control an important public service (on-demand personal transportation, in Uber’s case) and then shrug off the social responsibility by claiming that the regulations and protections that applied to the legacy model don’t apply to you for [waves hands in the air] some reason.
You phrase it like abdication of responsibilities, I think both cases (Facebook and Uber) are actively malevolent.
I don’t fully agree-- mainly because I see these actions coming from a desire to hoard money and power above all else. What we perceive as malevolence is just them literally not giving a shit.
It’s pretty much that Mad Men quote:
Except replace “I feel bad for you” with “I think you’re evil”
It matters at some level because the way you go after sociopathic greed is different from.the way you go after true desire to harm. But is there a net difference for you and me…? Yeah not really.
When they make the conscious decision to do the thing that’s worse for their users because it makes them more money, that’s malevolence. Business decisions of that scale rarely happen by accident.