This is the same argument that people who have bullied others into committing suicide have used to try and avoid responsibility. The courts disagree with you.
my issue was more over the phrase, "literally killing". Unless I'm grossly mistaken about the feature set of Instagram, I'm pretty sure the best you could charitably get is "directly responsible for" and I'd still need a lot of convincing to get me past "could be and indirect or contributing factor".
About said court decisions, without knowing what court cases you mean specifically I'm left assuming that they were able to prove malicious intent where as I don't think you get that from software. Can you?
I'm a fan of your delivery; "Unless I'm grossly mistaken about the feature set of Instagram" gave me a hearty chuckle.
Anyway, if you could spare me a moment of charity and suppose that Instagram _is_ directly responsible for teen suicides, why shouldn't we consider that equivalent to "literally killing"? I'm unsure if there's real value to be preserved in splitting these hairs.
If I'm "directly responsible" for fatally hitting someone with a car, then I've "literally killed" that person.
What if someone pushes them infront of your car, did you still kill them? Is it still fair to say you "literally killed them"? What if they decided to kill themselves, and intentionally jumped in front of your car? Samething? Both sound more misleading than true. Technically true granted, but i don't think the bar for reasonable is should be "technically true, but misleading"
What about planters nuts? Is it reasonable say they are "literally killing" children/teens/people as well?
Well, I explicitly asked for your charity. If you're unwilling to grant me that, then we're already at an impasse.
Yes, what if what if what if, a hundred times over. Imagine whatever mitigations you deem appropriate to obviate this corporation. We obviously disagree. I'm not trying to argue you into my position, but can you understand where my ire comes from?
It's not that I've done the cost-benefit analyses and rationally found Facebook deficient. I'm saying that in this specific circumstance, with these specific actors, I find Facebook directly responsible for every suicide that any teenager wishes to blame on Instagram.
I value Instagram and their sniveling PR bureaucrats far less than I value the absence of any harm they've wrought from their profit motive.
I'm not stating that you hold the contrary opinion; I believe that there is a set of morals you can hold that allows you to not blame Facebook, while not precluding the goodness of your character. In fact, I'm willing to give you the charity of assuming that you hold some such set of morals; if I didn't think you were engaging in good faith, I wouldn't engage you at all.
I believe I understand what you're saying. I don't agree with your values, such as I understand them. So I'll ask again: will you grant me the charity of assuming, just this once and solely for the purpose of my argument, that Facebook is directly responsible, without mitigation? And, under this assumption, can you relate to me what value you find in delineating between "directly responsible" and "literally killing"?
If you can't grant me this charity, then that's entirely fine. I'll still believe we're engaging in good faith, with good humor; and, in fact, I'll enjoy our engagement all the same. But if you can't grant me this charity, may I ask: why?
I did grant your hypothetical though? If Facebook and Instagram software was the primary, and root cause of the distress that caused someone to commit suicide. I still think it's misleading to say they "literally killed". The value in that distinction is exactly that misleading.
Reusing my planters nuts example. If planters nuts is "literally killing" people with their peanuts; the solutions will fit around that premise. How do we stop plantars from killing people. Contrast peanuts are responsible for the death of people. How can we stop people from dying to peanuts?
If you still reject that argument because I'm not conceding the assumption of responsibility enough. Then I apologize for misunderstanding your argument/question. And I can answer why I can't grant the charity. it's because it is so divorced from reality that I lack the context to speak intelligently. The amount of things that I understand about reality would have to change so drastically in order for a software application to literally kill somebody leaves me without the ability to reason about it logically.