The internet is the same as the other mass media when it was newly invented. The printing press didn’t change how people were, it just allowed them to reach wider audiences. Without the printing press, Martin Luther is just a guy. Without Twitter, Trump is also just a guy.
Facebook does connect people. Billions of people log in every day to see what their friends and family are up to. You might find that far fetched because you don’t know anyone who does, but that’s just your bubble.
The issue with Facebook is that making communication free has consequences. Those consequences are what Facebook gets blamed for. But this would happen regardless because it’s a direct consequence of the internet making communication free.
I can see what some people are up to by watching reality TV, but that’s not connecting with them.
The issue is Facebook is built on people wanting to connect with others and Facebook is actively preventing this. Lonely people simply make better customers.
False equivocation. Monopolizing the social graph and using it to manipulate people isn't the same as having links exist on the internet.
A sane world would have it legislated out of existence and replaced with protocols anyone could implement with no central control.
The critisism would then go to Bookface.
Independent of it, look what Facebook left: Nothing of importance.
Before newsfeeds and like buttons, the combo which enables Facebook's algorithmic hate machine (recommender to maximize engagement).
Bold claim, Cotton. I personally have a hard time imagining a world where if Facebook didn't exist, something like it wouldn't either. There were plenty of companies vying for the same idea. Or is the suggestion that all usage of the internet to allow people to connect with each other are bad.