> If a poem (or book) makes 10% of its readers more likely to become geniuses and contribute to solving world problems such as cancer, but 0.1% of its readers are more likely to commit suicide, should that book be banned by law?
I really don't know the answer. I've struggled with this tradeoff myself, as I've built some tools that have powerfully impacted people on an emotional level and I've been hesitant to put them out there because of the severe damage they might do to a small percentage of the population.
That being said, I read a few essays a few years back about Frankenstein and this from a Q&A[0] in the same Slate series[1] that I try to remember when I think about creating such tools:
> Does that make it into a warning against playing God?
> It’s probably a mistake to suggest that the novel is just a critique of those who would usurp the divine mantle. Instead, you can read it as a warning about the ways that technologists fall short of their ambitions, even in their greatest moments of triumph.
> Look at what happens in the novel: After bringing his creature to life, Frankenstein effectively abandons it. Later, when it entreats him to grant it the rights it thinks it deserves, he refuses. Only then—after he reneges on his responsibilities—does his creation really go bad. We all know that Frankenstein is the doctor and his creation is the monster, but to some extent it’s the doctor himself who’s made monstrous by his inability to take responsibility for what he’s wrought.
I try to remind myself of this lesson that perhaps it's not about not creating powerful things but trying to continue to maintain these things instead of abandoning them and just accepting the havoc they wreaked.
I think where I often feel the most frustrated is in believing that FB doesn't really seem to me to be trying that hard in 1) making the platform less addictive, 2) getting rid of bots, 3) suggesting which legislation they want (instead of just punting and say "we said we want regulation, it's your job Congress to create it"), etc.
I don't think they'll ever get rid of all the things that cause harm, as it's even hard to choose dinner for a party of 4 where someone won't get hurt or angry, and this is a scale almost 1 billion times larger. I just want to have the impression that they are trying, or at the bare minimum, that they have the courage to say that sometimes bad things come with the good and they openly say that they are choosing that tradeoff. Maybe they've said it that way, I just don't seem to trust them much in terms of trying to take responsibility for their creation.
[0]: https://slate.com/technology/2017/01/why-frankenstein-is-sti...
[1]: https://slate.com/tag/futurography-frankenstein
*edit: formatting line breaks