Is Facebook doomed to be remembered in the same way as Big Tobacco?

Will we one day think of Facebook the way we now think of cigarettes? Or is the company more akin to the gun lobby? Perhaps the alcohol industry is the closer fit. As we shall see, there’s merit in all three comparisons, given the lethal harm this company is inflicting. Except those parallels actually understate the problem.

For none of them quite gets at the sheer scale and power of this single corporation. That reality was made especially vivid this week, when a six-hour outage confirmed that 3 billion people around the globe have come to depend on Facebook, along with its properties WhatsApp and Instagram, as the place to do business and find out about the world. Facebook might like to pretend that it’s simply a place where friends and family can “connect”, but it’s much bigger than that – and far more dangerous.

Advertisement

Hence the comparison to big tobacco. In the early 1960s, scientists at one cigarette maker, Reynolds, concluded that the evidence that smoking was linked to cancer was “overwhelming”. Meanwhile, researchers at the rival firm Philip Morris were drawing up a list of dozens of carcinogens in cigarette smoke. But guess what – none of that information was made public. On the contrary, for more than three decades, the tobacco industry refused to admit any evidence of harms from smoking, even though its own research told the exact opposite story.

Now listen to the testimony of Frances Haugen, a former Facebook product manager who this week unmasked herself as the whistleblower behind a series of shattering revelations published initially by the Wall Street Journal. One internal document from 2019 shows that Facebook’s own research found Instagram – which brims with pictures of lean, toned bodies – to be psychologically toxic for young women in particular. “We make body image issues worse for one in three teen girls,” it read, adding that teens themselves “blame Instagram for increases in the rate of anxiety and depression”. Did Facebook’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, admit this finding when he came before Congress in March? He did not. Instead he said: “The research that we’ve seen is that using social apps to connect with other people can have positive mental health benefits.” In other words, smoking is good for you.

Original Quill wrote:Big tobacco has cigarettes, and they are unhealthy for people.  Facebook has algorithms, and they exploit people.

If Facebook were just an information exchange, I don't think there would be a problem.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Big tobacco has cigarettes, and they are unhealthy for people.  Facebook has algorithms, and they exploit people.

If Facebook were just an information exchange, I don't think there would be a problem.

The media now uses those algorithms for clicks which translate into profits.

I suggest you stay off of Facebook if you don't like it.

I sure as fuck don't need some paternalistic pricks saving me from mean words, especially ones directed at people in power.  

Facebook has governments scared, but they won't say that.  That's why the Chinese ban it and other governments want it more regulated..

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Big tobacco has cigarettes, and they are unhealthy for people.  Facebook has algorithms, and they exploit people.

If Facebook were just an information exchange, I don't think there would be a problem.

The media now uses those algorithms for clicks which translate into profits.

I suggest you stay off of Facebook if you don't like it.

I sure as fuck don't need some paternalistic pricks saving me from mean words, especially ones directed at people in power.  

Facebook has governments scared, but they won't say that.  That's why the Chinese ban it and other governments want it more regulated..

They are not just 'words'.  They are tricks...they hire psychologists, to find out all about you, and then use 'key' words to trigger you.  They are the worst of manipulativeness.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

They are not just 'words'.  They are tricks...they hire psychologists, to find out all about you, and then use 'key' words to trigger you.  They are the worst of manipulativeness.

That is correct.
It isn’t social media that’s at fault, it’s stupid mindless sheep.

I will tell you what Facebook and social media did for people: it gave them attention.

Think about WHY certain people needed to be heard.
Think about WHY people are addicted to being heard.
Think about WHY it has become “dangerous”
Think about WHY it is so addictive and WHY people desire to be heard.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The media now uses those algorithms for clicks which translate into profits.

I suggest you stay off of Facebook if you don't like it.

I sure as fuck don't need some paternalistic pricks saving me from mean words, especially ones directed at people in power.  

Facebook has governments scared, but they won't say that.  That's why the Chinese ban it and other governments want it more regulated..

They are not just 'words'.  They are tricks...they hire psychologists, to find out all about you, and then use 'key' words to trigger you.  They are the worst of manipulativeness.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

They are not just 'words'.  They are tricks...they hire psychologists, to find out all about you, and then use 'key' words to trigger you.  They are the worst of manipulativeness.

Then stay off it.

Problem solved.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Then stay off it.

Problem solved.  

I do.  And I don't allow Alexis in my home.  Nor Ring to answer my door bell.  Nor do I allow Comcast to monitor my security.  Nor do I allow my TV to answer my phone.  All this stuff is subject to that fine print, hidden deep in the contract, that says the company has permission to harvest personal details about my life, for resale to third-parties.

And that doesn't begin to address the issue of illicit hackers.

I don't know what is happening, but privacy is a thing of the past.  People even allow their bank accounts to be accessed via the Internet!!  The very bastion of their wealth.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I do.  And I don't allow Alexis in my home.  Nor Ring to answer my door bell.  Nor do I allow Comcast to monitor my security.  Nor do I allow my TV to answer my phone.  All this stuff is subject to that fine print, hidden deep in the contract, that says the company has permission to harvest personal details about my life, for resale to third-parties.

And that doesn't begin to address the issue of illicit hackers.

I don't know what is happening, but privacy is a thing of the past.  People even allow their bank accounts to be accessed via the Internet!!  The very bastion of their wealth.

OK grandpa.

So it's not Facebook, but technology.

I'm surprised you're not worried about the dangers of forums.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

OK grandpa.

So it's not Facebook, but technology.

I'm surprised you're not worried about the dangers of forums.  

It's Facebook PLUS Capitalism...incidentally using technology.

How does Facebook make money?  Ans: they sell your privacy.  Well...first they collect private information on you (Aiexis is listening), then they sell it.  In the past, marketing was just blanket advertising.  Now, it's collecting data (information on you) and targeting the advertising.

Imagine what happens when political parties, and even foreign countries, get into using that business.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's Facebook PLUS Capitalism...incidentally using technology.

How does Facebook make money?  Ans: they sell your privacy.  Well...first they collect private information on you (Aiexis is listening), then they sell it.  In the past, marketing was just blanket advertising.  Now, it's collecting data (information on you) and targeting the advertising.

Imagine what happens when political parties, and even foreign countries, get into using that business.

You seem to have solved the problem. What is your point? So you think others need saving?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You seem to have solved the problem. What is your point? So you think others need saving?

I told you what I do...or don't do.  Each person can make up his or her own mind.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I told you what I do...or don't do.  Each person can make up his or her own mind.

In my dreams.  

Those fuckwits in Congress will never let that happen.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

In my dreams.  

Those fuckwits in Congress will never let that happen.

It's difficult, because America has a written First Amendment...perhaps the only Amendment that deals directly with our free political dialogue.  When we unravel this problem, we'll have to pay close attention that we are not unravelling legitimate protections.

With a 50-50 Congress - and one side dedicated solely to the destruction of the other - perhaps this will not be solved by the present Legislature.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I do.  And I don't allow Alexis in my home.  Nor Ring to answer my door bell.  Nor do I allow Comcast to monitor my security.  Nor do I allow my TV to answer my phone.  All this stuff is subject to that fine print, hidden deep in the contract, that says the company has permission to harvest personal details about my life, for resale to third-parties.

And that doesn't begin to address the issue of illicit hackers.

I don't know what is happening, but privacy is a thing of the past.  People even allow their bank accounts to be accessed via the Internet!!  The very bastion of their wealth.

OK grandpa.

So it's not Facebook, but technology.

I'm surprised you're not worried about the dangers of forums.  

It's Facebook PLUS Capitalism...incidentally using technology.

How does Facebook make money?  Ans: they sell your privacy.  Well...first they collect private information on you (Aiexis is listening), then they sell it.  In the past, marketing was just blanket advertising.  Now, it's collecting data (information on you) and targeting the advertising.

Imagine what happens when political parties, and even foreign countries, get into using that business.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's Facebook PLUS Capitalism...incidentally using technology.

How does Facebook make money?  Ans: they sell your privacy.  Well...first they collect private information on you (Aiexis is listening), then they sell it.  In the past, marketing was just blanket advertising.  Now, it's collecting data (information on you) and targeting the advertising.

Imagine what happens when political parties, and even foreign countries, get into using that business.

That's already happening, haven't you heard of Trump's Cambridge Analytica stuff?

Yes, the internet gathers information on us. I'm sure Forummotion does that to everyone here. Though probably not 5,000 data points on 200 million people, like Cambridge Analytica.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's difficult, because America has a written First Amendment...perhaps the only Amendment that deals directly with our free political dialogue.  When we unravel this problem, we'll have to pay close attention that we are not unravelling legitimate protections.

With a 50-50 Congress - and one side dedicated solely to the destruction of the other - perhaps this will not be solved by the present Legislature.

Will Rogers and I love a deadlocked congress.

But the damage has been done. Facebook has been put on notice and have already become extremely heavy handed.

The government has an ally in Facebook now. Soon it will be much like Chinese social media..

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Will Rogers and I love a deadlocked congress.

But the damage has been done. Facebook has been put on notice and have already become extremely heavy handed.

The government has an ally in Facebook now. Soon it will be much like Chinese social media..

The government isn't an ally.  The government is impotent right now.   This is a perfect opportunity for special interests to take hold.

This is classic special interests (capitalism) versus common interest (government), that we talk about in our discussions about Libertarianism.  This is a special interest, foreclosing on all competition, leading toward monopoly.  It's almost a textbook teaching exercise.

When monopoly is achieved, then watch what happens to prices and attempts by others to enter the field: monopolistic practices to (1) enhance profits; and (2) dissuade entry of other competitors.  Where is your invisible hand?  Where's that cooperative spirit that Libertarians allege descends upon the market?  It's dog-eat-dog.

There are really two problems.  One is the classic monopoly formation pattern of free-market economics; two is the unique power that this industry gives the producer (ie, Facebook) to penetrate spheres of privacy.  The second is what started this conversation; the first enhances the power of the producer to control government - which it knows is the real opposition.