[Edit 2: I think anyone commenting should identify how much they use Facebook in their comment lol]

On the list of people I describe in the subject, I place myself first. If you’re here to defend yourself by showing me your receipts, congratulations, you win, I just saved us who knows how much time. I’m typing this out in an attempt to describe phenomena, not persuade you of anything in particular, other than, this is a thing I see happening a lot; too much would be my take.

I’m just gonna grab [a] most egregious example, but I would like to talk about this, not as a horrific fail, but as an exemplar; at the moment I believe that most people categorize it as the former.

[edit: there really is no “most” egregious example, and I just thought of a much worse one, and unlike Facebook I am fully guilty of this one: I own and drive a car, a lot, and boy am I ignoring some real world consequences there.]

That example being, Facebook Acted As The Main Propaganda Outlet For A Genocide Of The Rohingya In Myanmar, and therefore, Anyone Who Uses Facebook Is Using A Tool That Has Bloodstains On It And Are Somehow Not Horrified.

To more easily conceptualize this, it’s much the same as me needing a shovel, and having a neighbour that I happen to know murdered someone with their shovel, but has not been arrested for it, and right when I need the shovel, they walk over with their bloodstained shovel and offer to let me use it for my non-murder task. And I just go “Wow how convenient that you happened to be here with that bright-red shovel just now, I think I’ll use this one one of yours with the little spatters of brain on it, instead of walking over to my shed and getting my own shovel out!”

We are talking about murder here, Facebook was used to foment mass murder and in a world that made sense, Zuckerberg would be handed over to the ICC years ago, along with Henry Kissinger and a number of others who instead hang out at the Nobel Peace Prize club where Barack makes a mean Mai Tai.

The problems that people use Facebook to constructively solve is connections to family and close friends, event and interest group organizing, the marketplace, and for the avid user it constitutes a daily journal.

These problems could each be solved using something else that is also just as gratis. It might be a small amount of effort more, but then you maybe don’t ever have to touch the remains of a human life that once existed and now does not, due to this particular device being used to end that life.

But it seems that it’s more convenient, easy, zero effort, to simply ignore the gore.

That’s what I see on the internet. I don’t think anyone has ever accepted a bloodstained shovel and set to digging a ditch with it who didn’t also feel that their life was next if they didn’t, but as long as there’s no visible bloodstains, as long as it’s just a few articles and podcasts from known radical leftists, eh, look at little Jimmy’s recital, isn’t he cute?

    • JTode@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have trouble believing that humans can’t get by without Facebook. Even in the absence of viable replacements, we got along fine for millenia… arguably, we got along with each other better.

      • jocanib@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have trouble believing that humans can’t get by without meat, or cars, or carbon fuel, or mass-produced clothes, or supermarkets, or .

        It does not matter what you believe, or what you prioritise. Other people have different beliefs and have made different choices. If you want them to think and choose differently, don’t start off by telling them that they’re scum while you polish your imaginary halo.

        And for fucks sake don’t fill the Fediverse up with so much narcissistic, whiny crap that everyone who isn’t you fucks off somewhere else.

        This is not hard.

      • jocanib@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And having seen your edit of the OP, I quit Facebook something like 15 years ago and only ever had fake name accounts.

        I quit Twitter the day Musk took over. I quit Reddit the night before it went dark. I’ve been boycotting Google as much as is possible for well over a decade.

        Have I polished my halo enough for you to stop sneering and start growing up?

        FFS

  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That example being, Facebook Acted As The Main Propaganda Outlet For A Genocide Of The Rohingya In Myanmar, and therefore, Anyone Who Uses Facebook Is Using A Tool That Has Bloodstains On It And Are Somehow Not Horrified

    I think you’re being naiive if you look around the world and see a bunch of tools without blood stains. Newspapers have caused immense harm, books have caused immense harm, road networks kill thousands and thousands of people every single year, our meat based diets kill millions of animals and we love watching big movie star beef cakes who got big eating those animals. Hell do you have a job, do you work and participate in capitalism? Congratulations you’re participating in a system of artificial scarcity that kills millions a year.

    We all use blood stained tools on a literal daily basis, it is not a new or surprising phenomena it is a necessary part of how we survive our day to day lives.

    And quite frankly Behind the Bastards is a podcast that knowingly Streisand effects people like Andrew Tate and Ben Shapiro when they need to crank out low effort content for Clear Channel Communications, even “radical leftists” as you refer to them aren’t blood free.

    The problems that people use Facebook to constructively solve is connections to family and close friends, event and interest group organizing, the marketplace, and for the avid user it constitutes a daily journal.

    These problems could each be solved using something else that is also just as gratis. It might be a small amount of effort more, but then you maybe don’t ever have to touch the remains of a human life that once existed and now does not, due to this particular device being used to end that life.

    Also, this is flat out wrong. No, you cannot solve each of those problems using something else (except for journaling). Each one of those problems relies on Facebook’s social network and the network effects of everyone using them for them to be valuable (in addition to Facebook’s real name policy that, like it or not, is quite difficult and expensive for most internet services to implement and provides an immense amount of value to something like Marketplace over Kijiji).

  • Pandantic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be fair, what you’re asking is for normal people to step outside the media they normally consume and seek other (sometimes untrusted) media to come to these conclusions. Some would say, “If this really happened, why isn’t the media reporting on it?” I know why, you know why, but the regular person out there thinks it must be an extreme view if their preferred media outlets are not reporting on it.

  • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is just standard (and good) criticism of capitalism. “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism” as they saying goes.

    But there’s the question of whether the mass murder in Myanmar would have happened without Facebook. That’s impossible to know for sure, admittedly, but I still believe it’s possible to think about it meaningfully. Because my answer is mass murder would have probably happened without Facebook.

    The core of my argument is that technology merely allows humans to act more effectively and amplifies what we already do. What humanity does is not fundamentally changed by technology in most cases. And Facebook is one of the cases where the previously existing social division was amplified, where bad faith actors could act more effectively. Yes, Facebook had an important role to play by trying to make the platform addictive via algorithms that emotional content could hijack and spread like wildfire. However, while that doesn’t absolve Facebook’s instrumentality to mass murder altogether, it contextualizes it enough for me to treat it as any tool.

    In other words, a murder-shovel digs just as effectively as a non-murder-shovel, and I don’t really see an intrinsic problem with using the murder-shovel.

    The analogy of the tool fails when it comes to Zuckerberg’s role in directing Facebook to act as it did. A shovel doesn’t have a CEO dedicated to digging as much as possible; Facebook does have a CEO dedicated to making the platform addictive, the mechanism by which social divisions were amplified. I think his responsibility is complex…but he absolutely shares some responsibility for the tragedy.

    And so, that’s why I believe your post is a good, moralistic criticism of capitalism: it demonstrates how market relations obfuscate moral responsibility. Facebook mediates and helps satisfy our social needs while allowing us to ignore our role, however small it is, in perpetuating the means by which others can influence others to commit tragedies.

    • JTode@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, but that radio station should definitely be shut down and handed over to the ICC, just like Facebook and Zuck.

      By your silly analogy, I would have a problem with all the physical equipment manufacturers that Facebook buys their servers, switches, etc from. It’s not about the equipment, actually, it’s about allowing the operator of that radio station to continue operating the radio station, and not just that, continuing to listen to a station operated by that broadcaster in a different market, because in your market it’s all car ads and vaccine denial instead.

      Try again.

      • Your Huckleberry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Facebook didn’t generate the objectionable content. They created a mechanism for people to communicate with one another, like radio did a century earlier. Asking Facebook to check to make sure people don’t missuse the platform is like asking radio manufacturers make sure equipment doesn’t fall into the hands of evidoers.

        What would you have had Facebook do, specifically? What practical steps are you wanting them to have taken? Could those steps be reasonably taken for every country in the world?

        • dditty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          To maintain the analogy - what if the radio equipment were somehow designed to provide stronger, more far-reaching frequencies if the DJs were broadcasting hate speech and military commands, but shorter, weaker frequencies when DJs discussed crimes against humanity? Facebook isn’t a truly open platform, it’s algorithms dictate what users see and what goes viral.

          • Your Huckleberry@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I see where you’re going, but I think it’s important to note that the Facebook algorithm wasn’t intentionally boosting hate, it just looks to maximize engagement. The unintended consequence is that hate gets boosted because it gets engagement both from the haters and the hated.

            • dditty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Agreed. I personally struggle with the word “intentionally,” however. Meta was aware of the negative side effects of their content algorithms far before the recent Myanmar violence and did nothing to remedy it. There were internal reports about teen suicide and eating disorders several years prior that they tried to hush up, and of course the Cambridge Analytica data privacy scandal which revealed the extent to which Facebook was supplying third parties with user info that was directly responsible for increased partisanship in the 2016 & 2020 election cycles, and probably (imo) they share some blame for recent hate crimes in the US accordingly. And now we know they definitively hold blame for increased violence in Myanmar. If they knew the effect their platform had and did nothing about it, that to me seems intentional. Just my 2¢

    • JTode@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Lol I knows baby, I knows.

      In the end we must all rise up or go under, all together is how it ends up either way. I do try to buy my clothes at the thrift, which is easy since I never had the choice to be fashionable; wrong body type, which also meant I have frequently been faced with the choice in life to either buy ugly and ethically compromised [edit: also expensive, really expensive] clothing, or just go naked with my body that everyone finds utterly disgusting, went the reigning social narrative of the era. The world is a real bastard.

      That said, anyone who makes sure to like all their grandpa’s Facebook posts, I would ask you to ask yourself this:

      Do you think your grandpa cherishes every single one of your Facebook likes as much as a single phone call?

      Or do you think your grandpa is there because he was also told that he had to be there now, if he wanted to connect to his family?

      • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You know, yet you don’t hand-loom your own clothing from local materials. Interesting. I guess it’s more convenient, easy, zero effort, to simply ignore the gore.

  • BURN@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think you’ve got to consider that most people don’t care. People have a limited capacity of things they can care about. That limit generally extends to the well-being of themselves and their immediate family, and a few major external issues they really care about. You yourself call out the car issue, you acknowledge it’s bad, but you continue because it’s outside of your capacity to really care.

    There’s also the fact that for many people FB is the only platform that’s used by elderly relatives. You’re not going to get 90 year old Grandma to switch platforms. So if it’s a choice between a poor platform and less contact with extended family, many are going to pick the poor platform. There isn’t another comparable platform, despite some trying.

  • Anafroj@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    requested info : I don’t use Facebook. I’ve had an account I opened in 2018 due to peer pressure, and I closed it in 2018.

    I’m not familiar with that story, so correct me if I’m wrong, but this looks like a classic case of shooting the messenger. Facebook is a communication tool. The fact that horrible people used it to do horrible things doesn’t sound like a problem with the tool, except of course if people from Facebook were aware of it while it was happening (I doubt so, for the simple reason that they would have nothing to gain from that, and much to lose ; but again, correct me if I’m wrong). Genocides have probably been organized using phone and paper mail systems, but nobody would say “stop using phones, it’s bloodstained”. At least, with Facebook, there’s a possibility of moderation that never existed with previous means of communication.

    … but fuck Facebook anyway. :P

    • JTode@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      if people from Facebook were aware of it while it was happening

      Narrator: They were, including Zuck.

      • Anafroj@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m sorry, I’m not taking your word for it, that’s not how it works. :) Do you have reliable sources on that?

        • JTode@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I linked to a podcast at the end of the post, and if you follow the link, one of the first things you see is a list of links to articles and such.

          Consider yourself led to water, Mr. Ed.

  • joel_feila@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Facbook use : no account never used it.

    This brings up the limits of accountability. The average person cant control what Facebook does and who the promote. But they all contribute to Facebook’s large size and financial success.

    Edit as a follow up. Take the atomic bomb. Many people help make it, not just scientists like Oppenheimer, Steel workers that made the out casing for bomb played a part in making nukes. But no one ever holds them accountable, because we shouldn’t. At some point your actions are to remote to be accountable

    • JTode@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh dear, you have creeped my history and identified that I am neurodivergent, and therefore have identified the pretext to reject my thesis without bothering to really engage with its implications. Well played, you sure got that sucker.

      I am afraid you are off base though, I have put bipolar in front of my various practitioners many times, and they tell me that while they do see things that resemble a cycle in the things I say to them, the problem seems to be that neither my manic phases nor my depressed phases (last one was about ten years ago and lasted twenty years or so) were sufficiently destructive to my functioning to be diagnosable.

      That said, I am halfway through clearing a ~300m forest path on my property today, and intend to have a fence up a week from now, so who knows, maybe you and I are both correct and the doctors are wrong.

  • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Oh look! A living, breathing wokescold, complete with the public hypocrisy! I don’t know why I’m bothering pointing at it because they’re common like dirt, but here we are.