[stri8ted]

Assume Facebook no longer exists tomorrow. The same incentives that drive Facebook's behavior, i.e. human consumption patterns, will still exist. And will be exploited by another company. Facebook is merely one instance of a problem deeply rooted in humans.

Sure, there is the anti-competitive aspect to it. But wrt to the divisiveness and polarization, the exploitation by political actors, it would not make a difference. Something else would just rise up to fill that void. It's the digital equivalent of junk food. Banning Coke, would do nothing to solve obesity.

[dylan604]

That's an acceptable view point. However, that doesn't mean FB should not be punished into oblivion. They don't get a free pass just because "someone else would have done it if we didn't" is not an acceptable defense.

[stri8ted]

I don't disagree. My point is more broadly about the ills of social media, and how it's often framed as a Facebook problem.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the ills of social media, and how it's often framed as a Facebook problem

Facebook is the biggest. And we have evidence of the harm it, specifically, causes, in a way we don't for its competitors. They also have a spectacular track record of lying and lawbreaking.

[dylan604]

> And we have evidence of the harm it, specifically, causes,

Just to reiterate, it's not that it is "just" harmful. They are actively studying how to make it even more so.

[CosmicShadow]

Yeah, but what other social media exists beyond Twitter?

[JumpCrisscross]

> what other social media exists beyond Twitter?

Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Reddit and Pinterest each have more MAUs than Twitter [1].

[1] https://www.searchenginejournal.com/social-media/biggest-soc...

[dylan604]

25% of your list is owned by FB.

[andrew_]

Pandora's box, if you will. Social media companies created the void as they filled it. There's no putting the lid back on it now.