|
|
|
|
|
|
by normalhuman
2627 days ago
|
|
|
> Before we proceed, recall that Facebook is now a "morally bankrupt liars" because it "enabled genocide", "facilitate foreign undermining of democratic institutions", "allow the live streaming of suicides, rape, and murders", and "host and publish the mosque attack video". This is a nice example of a not so common fallacy, the "fallacy fallacy": suppose that you have an argument a for the proposition p: a -> p It does not follow that: ~a -> ~p Which is to say, showing some cherry-picked argument for Facebook being unethical to be invalid tells us nothing about Facebook being unethical or not. Given that you crated a throwaway account one hour ago just to post this comment, I suspect that you are aware of what I am saying, but others may not be. For those interested in a less cherry-picked source of claims against Facebook, there's even a Wikipedia page just for that (warning: it is quite long): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook |
|
|
Anyway, the reason that I am giving this cherry-picked argument is not to arrive at a conclusion on whether or not Facebook is being ethical or not. (Spoiler: I don't know, see my other comment.)
I wanted to highlight that ethics is a very subjective business. I understand why some people might consider these projects ethical. However, to some people, they are considered very much unethical. The New Zealand government says that because Facebook allows X, Y, and Z, therefore, Facebook is unethical. Now, you might disagree with this statement, but (no offense) what you think does not matter here, because this (X, Y, Z -> unethical) is now the standard that some entity is using to decide if something is unethical. By the same standard, if another project/product (that is not Facebook), allows X, Y, and Z, too, then this project/product is considered unethical by this entity. And it is very much the case (or at least possibly the case) that the projects listed here satisfy X, Y, and Z, too.