> My argument's pretty straight forward. Manipulation on the platform isn't profitable for Mark Zuckerberg. What's profitable is selling ads. Making teenagers anorexic doesn't increase his revenue, it just creates problems for him.
Nobody said that's the goal. Ads are the last step. Attention is the product, and the ranking system is tuned to maximise it. Harm is what
falls out of that optimisation. If engagement weren't the business, there'd be no feed algorithm at all.
> It's not Zuckerberg or "the algorithm" that's manipulating people on Instagram, it's people manipulating other people.
Partly true and beside the point. People produce the content. Zucks enterprises decide whose content reaches whom, how often, and at what age. That's not a users' choice, it's a design choice. The LA jury in March didn't rule on content either. It ruled that the product was built to addict.
> What's making you human isn't feeling or wanting to be heard, you have that in common with your cat or dog, what's uniquely human is being able to manage and control those impulses.
If we could all manage those impulses, there would be no advertisement industry. We already agreed as a society that it doesn't work on children, which is why you can't advertise alcohol, tobacco or gambling to them. You're arguing against a norm that's been law for decades.
> In a democracy it is not Zuckerberg's fault that a largely infantile population cannot manage their media consumption. That's like blaming the guy at the liquor store for the fact that you're drunk at ten in the morning.
You picked the one example that proves my point. Liquor stores need a licence, check ID, can't advertise to minors, and get sued for serving someone visibly drunk. Apply that to Meta and I'll take the analogy.
> in a democracy people get the institutions they deserve, by definition
"By definition" means it can never be wrong, which means it isn't an argument. And Zuckerberg has steered politics: he scrapped US fact-checking and rewrote the hate speech rules on 7 January 2025, two weeks before the inauguration. Trump said it was probably because of the threats he'd made.
You have to fight for democracy. Against people who want to harm or misuse it. Like Zuck. This is what the counter-weight is on this freedom machine.
So now, this ideology which you displayed here is quite toxic and anti-social. I know it because it became quite common in bubbles which cross here. I would like to know how you got there. Can you elaborate? I am really interested.