| So you're extrapolating your own personal successful experience with every case and every possible setting, while also showing quite a bit of prejudice towards the author. He does make valid points, and furthermore, as others have said, a 6 mile radius in a city like London covers hundreds of thousands of people. I can and would argue until infinity that there is absolutely no need whatsoever for a 6 mile radius warning in the event of 1 (one) single building on fire. Weather you like it or not or agree with FB or not, this was a completely localized event of minimal or no impact (other than maybe traffic for a couple of blocks??) to such an area. The same is clearly not true for events of other nature (natural disasters, nuclear, maybe manhunts but I already find that one questionable.., etc.) That is to say, the service is not evil or a bad idea. The criticism is more on the execution and the unnecessary, rather opportunistic, abuse of such an event. If the author is indeed biased because he did not live through such an event, then you are most definitely also biased because you did live through one; and you certainly seem to be not only receptive and even defensive, but apparently offended. This was more of yet another case of attention grabbing, manipulative and opportunistic behaviour with a good samaritan cover. Make no mistake: salesmen, media (in all formats), advertisers, politicians and companies of all sorts have been doing this for centuries. I understand you lived through an instance where this helped, but a single building on fire does not equal a natural disaster. The scale and impact is just very different, there is no arguing that. It's pretty simple actually: there is (should be) an appropriate level of response and a corresponding correct setting. In this particular case, it was way way off. Don't let your personal experience prevent you from recognizing that, for it's the same thing you accuse him of. And again, even acknowledging that, you may still not agree that it was done with an opportunistic intention; and that's fine, but it shouldn't prevent you or anyone from openly discussing where the correct boundaries are. |
My read from the author's article was that because the event was too inconveniencing for him because FB chose to response to this singular somewhat small event, with arguably too wide a net, that safety check isn't needed anywhere for anything.
Of course I used my personal experiences to refute his entire article.