There were definitely horrible places on the internet pre Facebook that were popular among kids like Rotten and Ogrish. But there was not a trillion dollar company investing billions of dollars and hundreds of scientists on research to attract and hook kids to their platform. This is not remotely comparable.

Doesn’t Facebook invest a significant part to protect their brand by limiting and censoring content?

Last I checked Facebook didn’t have Rotten content on it.

>Doesn’t Facebook invest a significant part to protect their brand by limiting and censoring content?

Not really.

>Last I checked Facebook didn’t have Rotten content on it.

Instagram directly connects children with children predators. Surfacing content from one to the other.

They invented the red notification badge. You know, the thing that gets you to compulsively open the app to view content of people doing better things than you in more exotic places than you. The thing that gets you to compulsively open the app to view content that makes you feel bad about yourself.

The targeted adverts to kids was more horrific. Like targeting troubled male teens with gun adverts.

who is pretending this? the two scenarios below are not the same. surely you see this, right?

scenario 1: some interesting chemicals exist in a warehouse in the middle of a cornfield in iowa.

scenario 2: a person picks up some interesting chemicals from a warehouse in the middle of a cornfield in iowa, compiles some of them into highly addictive packaging, brings them to a child’s room in phoenix, pokes the kid to try them, uses well studied addictive mental games to reward the kid. then, with his used car salesman quarter zip sweater and greasy talk, goes, “it was the kids choice. where were the parents?”

surely you recognize the two situations above are not the same.

and just like always, too many people fall for the modern equivalent of greasy sleezeball used car salesmen in a quarter zip who confidently says “it’s not my fault they bought the shit car.”

> who is pretending this?

The comment I’m replying to:

> still feels like they got away easy for raping children's minds

i don’t think you read my comment.

the situation you put forth and the situation in reality are two entirely different outcomes.

removing a bunch of relevant context doesn’t magically make them the same thing.

The case isn't whether or not this happens, it's whether or not the Facebook knew the about the harms and made decisions that were negligent at best or deliberate at worst

That’s not what the comment I’m replying to says.

Does that excuse Facebook?

The comment above says that Facebook “raped” children’s minds. When really it failed to protect children from the dangers of the internet.

The dishonesty of not acknowledging the existing problems with the internet, suggests we are trying to scapegoat Facebook.

Discord for example is contributing to this.

there's a difference between allowing exposure to unsafe content, against systematically and deliberately doing everything their psychologist/behavior economists could do to make sure kids were addicted to the product.

It sounds like you’re saying “sophisticated marketing”. Can you distinguish that from marketing that say McDonald’s does towards kids?

It was more organic, less profitable and mechanized.

Is inappropriate content on some random forum the same as deliberately manipulating children?

No, there's no need to. It has no bearing on the fact that Facebook facilitates child exploitation.