If IBM’s original product was “designed to facilitate the Holocaust”, then every article about IBM darn better lead with that.

In case of Facebook, it was originally designed literally to compare the attractiveness of female students; but no, it’s not even remotely as bad, and comparing it to the Holocaust trivializes an incident where masses of people were murdered in an industrial fashion.

Face mash was far from Facebook’s “initial product.” It was made before Facebook was even a thing (company or app). The purpose of each application, Face Mash and Facebook, was different and the only reason people call it a “precursor” is because it was made by Zuckerberg before he made Facebook.

You’re correct, there is a distinction since it is technically another product.

Taking a huge shit in the morning is a precursor to breakfast

Is this "every article" about Facebook/Meta or is it just one. The questionm is whether the statement makes sense to use in this article.

Possibly the point the author is making is that Zuckerberg never had an original idea or one that could be the subject of a business plan. He copied the "Hot or Not" websites that had come before. Further, the photos of students used for his "Facemash" website, i.e., the "content", were downloaded from the university's computers, not uploaded to Zuckerberg's computer. Initially, he downloaded and used students' photos without permission.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250115010420if_/https://www.th...

This pattern continued when he copied the idea of an online "face book" for the university which the university was already working on; adopting the name "thefacebook.com".

From the document production in Kadrey v Meta, it appears the pattern of copying still continues. Meta is still downloading and using others' work. Initially, without permission.

Comparing copyright infringment to assisting genocide is absurd. Although it interesting to note that Meta may have joined IBM in this regard:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/08/myanmar-time-...