Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

Post by lazide » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 9:11 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #241

mcguire wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure this would have the effect you want. You tax Facebook but allow it to operate however it wants. Facebook is then incentivized to double down on its algorithms---like tobacco companies using chemical and biological techniques to make cigarettes more addictive---in order to regain the lost profits.

Then you can double down on the taxes you levy against them if they begin harming more people, no? The idea is the cost of doing bad business will eventually be too much to make it worth doing that sort of bad business. Same idea with carbon taxes where the costs scale to damage and incentivize shifting to good behavior rather than doubling down on bad behavior. And even with cigarette companies doubling down, far fe…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

beepbooptheory wrote: post #492

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that most Greeks of that era believed they lived after the decline of a golden age, I suspect he might be be more understanding than most people today.

In fact, Plato himself lived through a ruthless and bloody revolution that killed his friends and ended in the reign of the 14 tyrants!

Post by munk-a » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

chacham15 wrote: post #363

jimkleiber wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really appreciate this point. I often see it as written rules (laws) and unwritten rules (ethics). If something breaks the unwritten rules we have about how people are supposed to interact with each other, then we often codify that rule into law. Many people will say "I didn't break the law" but where many people would say that person did break an unwritten law. > There should be no question, that what FB is doing…

> I often see it as written rules (laws) and unwritten rules (ethics). I think this is a very dangerous line to walk. A common phrase in law is "the law often allows what honor forbids" and that is because there is a difference between the law and ethics and IMO that is a good thing. Is it ethical to eat all the cookies in the cookie jar and leave none for anyone else? No. Should it be illegal? No.

Post by wanderingstan » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

nuerow wrote: post #409

docmars wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparisons, analogies, and metaphors are useful tools to increase understanding and draw parallels to ideas that are challenging to navigate and naturally, lead to a variety of thoughtful outcomes or interpretations. Crying "whataboutism" is as fruitless as you've described above. It is often used to steer a conversation towards a single direction of bias when those comparisons lead to inconvenient conclusions/possi…

> Comparisons, analogies, and metaphors are useful tools (...) Whataboutism is neither. It's a logical fallacy employed to avoid discussing the problem or address issues by trying to distract and deflect the attention to irrelevant and completely unrelated subjects.

Post by parineum » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

oarabbus_ wrote: post #494

parineum wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want the state to not outlaw hurting myself when it doesn't hurt others. The state's role is to prevent individuals from hurting others.

Unfortunately it's not so simple. An individual's smoking and alcohol use can and does harm others, and the state levies excise taxes for that reason. Another example is driving a car, which results in thousands of fatalities and many more injuries daily. Not to mention environmental impacts which affect others. The state chooses to require drivers to have insurance and their cars to pass smog tests, rather than outl…