[TheAceOfHearts]

Clickbait. I think the actual story was already posted a few days back.

I'm pretty sure tabbaco has killed a few more people than Facebook, so this is a ridiculous comparison.

Facebook does a lot for which it should be criticized, but it feels like we're just beating on a dead horse.

It's also hilarious that someone would be so critical of Facebook all while including their share button in the same article. Apparently they're evil, but not evil enough to stop using their service. I think that says a lot about the author.

[chillacy]

> Oh, my God. Using an Android phone is like paying for dinner with a Discover card. It’s like saying, “Don’t have sex with me.” It’s the ultimate prophylactic that says “I should be ...”

> “I should be screened out of the gene pool.” If you use an Android phone or have a Discover card, your family tree should come to an end.

Yea I’m gonna go with purposefully inciting reactions online for more clicks.

[crunchlibrarian]

It's a link to a commentary podcast, not sure which "actual story" you're referencing but there have been several negative stories about Facebook which they talk through and that's kind of the point of the podcast.

[xfitm3]

> I'm pretty sure tabbaco has killed a few more people than Facebook, so this is a ridiculous comparison.

There are worse outcomes than death.

[fipple]

Like having a shadow profile on Facebook.

[tomhoward]

Technically true, but smoking-related illness can be one of the more horrible ways to go.

[lallysingh]

> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...

I don't think it's that far apart.

[bilbo0s]

It's pretty far apart to be honest.

What FB and Suu Kyi do in Myanmar is terrible, but they would have to replicate the same genocide in every nation across the globe to match the body count of the tobacco guys.

(Which they may manage to do in the future. Who knows? But to date they are just not there yet to be perfectly frank.)

[austenallred]

It really doesn’t make sense to me that the argument is basically this:

“The x military shared anti-y Facebook posts, then caused a genocide of the y people.”

And Facebook is at fault?

Do we really expect Facebook to police speech at that level, or should we not place the blame with the military?

Those posts came from .0000066% of Facebook’s users. If you’re Facebook how do you effectively police that?

[lallysingh]

Hey those kids chose to smoke those Camels! How's the cigarette company responsible?

[austenallred]

You really don’t see any difference there?

[lallysingh]

Children and militaries will act predictably. How Facebook reacts is the variable under question.

[smt88]

Tobacco has killed more people so far. Facebook accepted a lot of money to help Trump win, so if he were to start a war or something, I think the blood would also be on Facebook's hands. Climate change is a whole other issue with him, though less direct.

Also, I understand the headline to be a comparison of tactics, not of harm.

And as for the share button, writers don't make their site's templates.

[dontreact]

Facebook accepted more money from the Clinton campaign though right?

[smt88]

If she had won, people gave her FB strategy (and Russia) credit for her victory, and she started a war, I'd say the same thing about her.

Helping a politician who ends up killing people is arguably helping to kill those people, whether you're a voter or an ad firm or IBM in the 40s.

[dontreact]

“People gave credit for”

What should the standard of proof be for accusing an organization of “helping to kill”? Have we met that with Facebook?