[robertlagrant]

This article seems to not really mention the "knowingly" or the "abetted". If there are people killing other people, I wouldn't say that a communication method was to blame. In Scream, Sidney didn't sue the phone company who let the killer call her from inside the house. The idea that some news feed posts whipped people up into a killing frenzy just sounds absurd.

I wish the author could see that, and if the case is valid, to provide it, instead of some pretty tenuous claims of connection strung together to lead up to a demand for money.

I did try to go to the link that evidenced the "multiple" times Facebook was contacted in a 5 year period, but I couldn't get through. How many times was it, for anyone who can?

[zorked]

This is a very low-quality comment. Amnesty International published a substantial, well-researched, well-sourced study. Your comment is low-effort Internet skepticism based on ignorance and a straw-man argument.

Read the report, gather data, then criticize it.

[robertlagrant]

I'm talking about the article, not the report, and I tried to make clear where I didn't know things. Not sure what else would be appropriate.

[bishbosh]

> If there are people killing other people, I wouldn't say that a communication method was to blame. In Scream, Sidney didn't sue the phone company who let the killer call her from inside the house. The idea that some news feed posts whipped people up into a killing frenzy just sounds absurd.

This is the core of your point and a comment on the idea itself, not the way the article portrayed it. I think it's fare to characterize your dismissal as glib.

[giraffe_lady]

The full report is linked to in the first paragraph. These points are all addressed in detail there.

[upwardbound]

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ASA16/5933/2022/en/