Skip to main content

View Diary: Facebook is Murdering Dogs (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "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