[rishabhsagar]

Isn't this the same point as "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"?

While that statement is objectively true, the fact remains that Facebook amplifies and benefits from sensational posts.

They are in a position to moderate the worst impacts of mis-information and yet consistently appear to be falling short.

While I agree that parts of society is to blame for the online toxicity online, FB (and other social media companies) are certainly in position to do a better job of managing some of the worst impacts such as vaccine hesitancy and political mis-information.

Infact they appear to be reluctant to act on it, since sensational posts and controversial topics appear to encourage attention.

[908B64B197]

> Isn't this the same point as "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? While that statement is objectively true, the fact remains that Facebook amplifies and benefits from sensational posts.

And yet simply looking at Switzerland or Vermont, countries/States with a high number of guns per capita and an extremely low rate of gun violence, tells us a different story.

[mrtranscendence]

I'm not sure what you're even responding to here. How does it matter that there are areas with high gun ownership and low gun violence? It remains true that a gun gives the means to more easily kill someone, which is all that the analogy needs -- unless you're arguing that guns don't make it easier to kill, in which case I don't know why so many people bother using them.

[908B64B197]

What I mean is there's an intense focus on the weapon, but not on the people who use them and why.

Huge disparities like those we observe simply can't be explained by the simple narrative that "the gun causes the violence".