Skip to main content

View Diary: Facebook is Murdering Dogs (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dream It Real, KenBee

    Regardless of facebook's not being hard infrastructure like a road, you are depending on semantics to defend vile business practices.

    The fact is that it became infrastructure - and not for me, read more carefully, I am quite clear about saying that in my case, I don't like it but it doesn't matter - and as this is a change applied to only a few pages, and one they are not doing for anything other than an experiment on those pages, saying that they are justified in sticking to that experiment in cases where it is doing great harm is just you arguing for the sake of hearing your own voice.

    •  No, that's not true at all. (10+ / 0-)
      The fact is that it became infrastructure
      No, the fact is that some organizations have started treating it like infrastructure.

      That does not create an obligation on Facebook's part to operate as if Facebook were infrastructure.

      Let's use an analogy here: Suppose I have a house with a big front yard on a corner that experiences a large amount of foot traffic—and suppose that people start cutting across my lawn instead of walking all the way around the corner on the sidewalk.

      And then, let's say, I get sick of there being this line across my lawn where repeated footsteps have worn away the grass, so I decide to pave that stretch across my lawn.

      But a while later, I decide that I'd like to reclaim my front yard, maybe put in a fountain or something, so I close off the paved path on my front lawn and put up a fence so that people have to walk all the way to the corner again.

      About a week after I've put the fence up and torn out the paved path, a man is being chased by an axe-wielding murderer and is trying to get to the police station around the corner for safety—and, unable to cut the corner, he is caught by the murderer and killed.

      You would suggest in this situation that I am to blame for this man's murder, because I closed off the path running through my front yard.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:25:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That logic (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dream It Real

        is more tortured than the dogs being dragged into gas chambers today.

        •  Then please enumerate exactly where... (6+ / 0-)

          ...my analogy breaks down.

          Facebook's sidewalk isn't a city-owned sidewalk but a privately-owned one; that these organizations are treating it like infrastructure doesn't make it so, nor does it create an obligation on the part of Facebook to keep things running in a way that is most convenient for these organizations.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:33:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your sense of legality (0+ / 0-)

            is trumped by your lack of a sense of ethics.

            •  "Obligation" isn't necessarily... (5+ / 0-)

              ...all about "legality."

              Surely we would agree that Facebook is in no way legally obligated to offer this free service to anyone at all. But you are suggesting that they are ethicallyobligated.

              You're suggesting that because these organizations have (with absolutely no agreement from Facebook to this effect) become dependent on a free service offered by Facebook, Facebook is now ethically obligated in perpetuity to keep this service running in the way that these organizations find most convenient.

              If Facebook fails to keep this service running in the way these organizations find most convenient, you write, it is Facebook that is ethically culpable for the death of these dogs whose lives are on the line—not the people who actually engage in the action of killing the dogs, and not the people or organizations who chose to make the lives of these dogs dependent on Facebook's service rather than using a different service that offered more in the way of user control.

              So, to recap: To you, Facebook is "murdering dogs," and those who suggest otherwise "lack a sense of ethics."

              If nothing else, you have a profound gift for hyperbole.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 03:10:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Would you be making the same (0+ / 0-)

                argument if twitter ran an experiment in the middle of the Arab Spring that cost lives?

                Do you not understand that there is a difference between obligation and ethics, between what the law calls for and what is the right thing to do?

                Do you think it was right for Bain to jack $350M of auto bailout money? It was legal, but was it right?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site