[throwanem]

I would like to have more constructive suggestions to offer, too. It's not a simple problem, though, and it will not be quickly solved. Threatening Facebook employees (doxing people is a threat) does not seem likely to make anything better.

[type0]

Well, facebook is "doxing" non-members by virtue of shadow profiles and by encouraging to tag everybody in the pictures. Counterintelligence could be a valid way to keep democratic society.

[throwanem]

The cases aren't parallel. A shadow Facebook profile exists that describes me, but it would be absurd to imagine that Facebook will use this information to, for example, send a SWAT team to my house to perform a forced entry - something which has been known to result from the kind of action here discussed. If you make available the necessary information for 4chan and like ilk to do such things, 4chan and like ilk may very well then do so, simply because to do so will briefly amuse them. Is that something for which you're comfortable with the idea of being responsible?

Don't get me wrong. I have no love whatsoever for Facebook, and I would very much like to see a world where no Facebook does or even can exist. But there's a difference between recognizing the problems that result from Facebook's existence, and imagining Facebook and its employees to be deliberately inflicting such problems on people and thus deserving of threatening, even violent, action in imagined response.

[daxorid]

Your aversion to threatening employees reminds me a bit of the old "just following orders" canard.

Developers are not sweatshop workers beholden to the company store. They have a plethora of employment options. If they willingly choose to work for such a company, the case could be made that they have made themselves legitimate targets for having made this choice.

[throwanem]

That case could indeed be made. It has been in the past, many times, with results whose nature I do not find an endorsement. But perhaps you feel differently. If so, I would urge you to consider the possibility that immoral actions, in response to immoral actions, do not themselves become more moral. There's also the more utilitarian concern that to threaten people in this fashion is not likely to engender sympathy among the undecided, or those who have simply not considered the question, and it most certainly will not engender sympathy among those whom you choose to target.

I might also counsel a certain restraint in your rhetoric, such that you fight shy of hyperbole such as likening Facebook to the NSDAP; ideally that would be your lookout and no one else's, but since we're arguing at least nominally on the same side of the issue, your statements reflect somewhat on mine, and I would prefer they not do so negatively.

[kafkaesq]

Your aversion to threatening employees reminds me a bit of the old "just following orders" canard.

It's not that. It's that in this very short life we have, it's not only not helpful (in the longer run) to pursue actions which knowingly hurt people for the sake of some perceived greater good (unless absolutely necessary) -- it leads one down a very dark path.

My solution? I'd prefer to educate people about the simple fact that most of these social media sites just don't do very much to improve our lives, are a huge soul-suck and time sink generally, and basically not worth the gargantuan amounts of time and emotional energy we invest in them.

So that eventually FB, WhatsApp and all the others will hopefully just die of starvation without a single shot fired (or employee being threatened or doxxed).