[xupybd]

I don't know if I agree with the outrage at Facebook. They are out to make money. They can make more money if they avoid controversy and keep their site a place that brands like to be associated with. It results in corporate censorship for sure, but is it Facebook's responsibility to provide a censorship free platform?

I fully agree with people taking note and becoming aware that Facebook is simply a business providing them a service and not a benevolent social network uniting the world.

But until people are willing to get upset enough about issues like this to leave Facebook, they really have no incentive to change. It's a reflection on society more than on one company. Like it or not, we use Facebook because we like it, it provides a service we're happy to consume. If we're happy and the advertisers are happy why would they care about these sorts of things?

[xg15]

This is mostly true, but IMO ignores:

a) the network effects that make people join the network even if they wouldn't want to on their own

b) Facebook's own agressive strategies of bringing users into their network without conscious choice - e.g. the acquisition of whatsapp or the internet.org initiative.

At this point it's more like some property shark who'd buy up half the city's apartment blocks, then proceed to cut services and raise the rents - and when people complain, respond "well, for some reason all those people chose to rent my apartments, so they must approve of what I do"...

[bbarn]

Point A is especially important. I quit four years ago, and I constantly get bombarded by people trying to get me to come back onto it. I have a few friends who've resisted and never gotten an account, but they are also constantly goaded about it.

[Chinjut]

We SHOULD be outraged at entities that, because they are purely out to make money, end up shaping the world in ways we'd rather it not be. That's a perfectly natural thing to be outraged by; that they are in fact incentivized to do the thing we are outraged by is just another thing to be outraged by!

[jscardella]

This also applies to non-for-profit institutions such as the Wiki Foundation. Jimmy Wales is well known for censoring content. Any resource that is used by a huge percent of the human population for information is going to shape/reshape. We have to be vigilant.

[brazzledazzle]

I think the outrage is perfectly fine. The only thing that's going to sway them is public opinion and outrage that can have an impact on their revenue stream.

[vidarh]

Exactly because they can make more money by avoiding controversy there is every reason to be outraged and make it known - it is the one channel we have to make it worth it for them to listen and consider changing their policies, by making it costly for them to ignore it.

> But until people are willing to get upset enough about issues like this to leave Facebook, they really have no incentive to change.

They will have an incentive to change if e.g. advertisers start worrying about their image if they advertise on Facebook too. Causing outrage and creating a debate around whether Facebook is damaging our society is a way of making Facebook a less attractive advertising channel as well.

[posterboy]

> They can make more money if they avoid controversy

Removing that picture for being pornographic should be much more controversial than the controversial pornographic aspect. The latter is really an US-centric notion.

[kilotaras]

One can argue that due to almost monopolic FB position government can and should take a look at free speech problems there.