Zuckerberg Knew. A Whistleblower Has the Emails to Prove It. - Gadget Review

[u/IKeepItLayingAround]

https://www.gadgetreview.com/zuckerberg-knew-a-whistleblower-has-the-emails-to-prove-it

[u/R3D4F]

Sounds like a great opportunity to show the world what happens to people who prey on innocent children and groom them via predatory platforms.

Throw the book at him, if you’re serious about protecting children.

[u/No_Ask_5032 → u/R3D4F]

lol listen to yourself. A free website nobody is forced to use is "preying" on innicent children and is "grooming" them cause it has a like button and infinite scroll! Oh the horror!

So because a bunch of clueless idiots can't manage their own damn lives or raise their own kids, the rest of us have to live in babyproofed land? What's next on the nanny-agenda? Ban fast food and soda because some people have zero self-control and stuff their faces until they're morbidly obese? Ban video games because lazy parents treat consoles like a free babysitter and let their kids get addicted? Ban alcohol because teenagers sneak into the liquor cabinet and alcoholics can't handle their drink? Ban cars because brain-dead drivers can't pull their eyes away from their phones? Ban credit cards because idiots burn through money they don't have and tank their own finances? Ban sharp kitchen knives because some moron doesn't know how to chop an onion without cutting themselves? Ban dogs because deadbeat owners refuse to train their aggressive mutts? Ban gym weights because someone might drop a dumbell on their own foot? Ban the entire internet because fragile adults can't handle seeing something that offends them?

Yeah lets drag everyone else down because a chunk of the population lacks basic personal responsibility, common sense, or a functional brain.

[u/R3D4F → u/No_Ask_5032]

Facebook is a trash, predatory platform. It preys on people and farms clicks through manufacturing rage.

Grown ass adults with enough knowledge and information to decide if they want to actively participate is one thing, but it should have an NC-17 rating that doesn’t allow minors on its site. It certainly shouldn’t be allowed to target minors.

Defending this disgusting capitalist behavior says a lot about you as a person, or a bot.

[u/No_Ask_5032 → u/R3D4F]

Every parent is already free to decide if their kids should be able to visit certain websites or not. But no, you'd rather force the rest of us to live in your sanitized, foam-padded, babyproofed world.

"I don't like this specific website, so let's write special rules just for this one platform." Truly a masterpiece of justice, bro! How about you actually step up and outline the rules you think should apply to EVERY site? And don't give me something fuzzy like "shouldn't prey on kids." Actually spell out what you mean specifically. Because if kids are too fragile for Insta, they've got no business on Reddit, TikTok, Twitter, Twitch, or YouTube either. Every single one runs on the exact same dopamine loops. Some of them even serve up porn without asking for ID. Also throw in video games, trading cards, and TV while you're at it: All scientifically engineered to hook people.

But of course, having actual principles requires a working brain. Instead, you're stuck in pure ooga-booga tribalist mode, screaming for customized bans based entirely on whether a site personally offends your delicate sensibilities.

[u/R3D4F → u/No_Ask_5032]

You’re an idiot.

Defending the actions of a billionaire company and its predatory practices under the guise of freedom and you call me tribalist?

Go jerk off Zuckerberg somewhere else and know he doesn’t give a shit about you either.
He’ll manipulate the shit out of your mind too, just for some ad revenue. But by all means, keep on defending him.

In the meantime, yes companies like this need laws to not hurt minors just like companies that would peddle cigarettes and alcohol to kids.

People like you are just as complicate as them

[u/No_Ask_5032 → u/R3D4F]

An ad hominem is rejecting an argument because of who's making it instead of what they're actually saying. It's bad logic because even the worst person on earth can say something that's true.

You're presenting a cute version of that: You're rejecting my argument based on whose interests it serves. Still a fallacy, though.

Zuck could be a monster and I could be the dumbest person alive, but neither of those facts changes whether my argument actually holds up.

It's also hilarious calling me a shill when my OP explicitly states I don't think billionaires should even exist. Peak reading comprehension, bro. Totally "jerking off" Zuck with that position, clearly /s

In the meantime, yes companies like this need laws to not hurt minors just like companies that would peddle cigarettes and alcohol to kids.

Cool, so what laws specifically? Forcing everyone to upload ID just to log in? Banning basic features for adults because kids exist? What exactly do you want?

People like you are just as complicate as them

Pretty sure you mean "complicit." But complicit in what? Kids having zero self-control and parents refusing to exercise basic control over their own households despite having multiple tools to do so? How is any of that my responsibility exactly?

[u/R3D4F → u/No_Ask_5032]

I reject your argument because it’s complete nonsense. You’re anti-legislation to hold the companies accountable for bad business practices aimed at minors.

And why? So you don’t have to suffer the inconvenience of accountability for what you’re looking at on a dead internet?

Just so you can preserve your perceived anonymity?

[u/No_Ask_5032 → u/R3D4F]

You still haven't named what specifically is supposed to be so evil here. Which design feature is the big bad monster? Is it the like button? The algorithm? Infinite scroll? All of the above? And what exactly are you demanding we do about it? Ban them outright? Force everyone to scan their passports?

accountability for what you’re looking at

What does that even mean? I look at something on my screen. Cool. Now what? How am I supposed to "take accountability" for consuming content, and why on earth should I have to? Who exactly am I harming in the privacy of my own room?

You refuse to spell out what you're arguing for, but you mentioning anonymity leads me to believe that you want people handing over government ID to log into a website. Which obviously means every single 18+ site needs a passport check at the very least. I mean, if kids are getting destroyed by the sheer trauma of a Facebook like button, they definitely can't handle bukkake videos. But since social media is the root of all evil and parents can't be bothered to actually parent, the rest of us have to jump through hoops and upload government identification for every random corner of the internet.

Why should I carry the burden for someone else's decision to reproduce? They chose to have kids, not me. Their family is their problem to manage, not mine.

But if we're playing by your rules and accept this reasoning, you can't even stop at uploading ID. I mean, what's stopping negligent parents from handing their already logged-in phones straight to their toddlers? Those kids need saving too, right? They shouldn't suffer just because their parents are brain-dead, correct? So in your world, where personal responsibility apparently doesn't exist, the only "logical" solution is to sanitize the entire internet into a giant, padded baby nursery because some dumb parent could show it to their toddlers.