There is no shortage of sites that will take Facebook's place.
What is the legislation you propose to prevent Facebook, or the millions of other existing or soon-to-be existing apps, from doing harm to people?
OK, consider gambling. That is simply a kind of software that enables people to engage in behavior that turns out to be harmful for a large number of them. And, because of that fact, it is heavily regulated.
> What is the legislation you propose to prevent Facebook, or the millions of other existing or soon-to-be existing apps, from doing harm to people?
I don't know if we know what sort of regulations would help yet. But I do know that if we assume a priori that corporations cannot be forced to change their behavior because it might hurt the poor corporation, then we will never figure out the answer.
Removing tetraethyl lead was certainly doable. Removing every car from the road was not. One was a targeted change that improved the industry, while the latter was so impractical that they never considered it.
Here's a thought - you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. How did you come to that conclusion? Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them?
I didn't actually say that. I think many social media sites are net positives, like this one here. I think Facebook specifically is a net negative.
> How did you come to that conclusion?
Performing experiments on users' emotional state without their consent: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/every...
Cambridge Analytica: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
Facebook makes users feel worse about themselves: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23709009
You get the idea. None of this is new. Some communities are more toxic than others. Some businesses are less ethical than others. I believe Facebook is an unethical business led by an unethical man making a product that is more harmful than good for most people.
> Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them?
I did not advocate that.
I don't agree that banning social networks would be productive or even possible, but this argument doesn't make sense. People had social lives before social networking. People had friends online before social networking. Social networking is not required for these things.
