Mark Zuckerberg to testify in landmark social media trial

https://archive.ph/VQNcJ

Of course he did: Zuckerberg has shown countless times that he's morally bankrupt: Each time, when given the choice (and regulatory landscape is gray) even with full knowledge of internal experts advising him against, he chose profits, even if "move fast and break things" includes the very society he and we all live in. (<- see current state of the world)

I suggest anyone who hasn’t reads Careless People.

Everyone I passed my copy around to has left Facebook almost instantly. Zuck is just one of the worst humans on the planet.

Somebody should tell him that the character of Mr Burns in The Simpsons was meant to be a satirical parody of evil tycoons, not a role model.

I'd wager that one day, his grandchildren (possibly even children), are going to call for his arrest and imprisonment, as a means to stop themselves being judged for his sins.

> Mark Zuckerberg overruled 18 wellbeing experts to keep beauty filters on Insta

Is there a source for this? The article doesn't seem to mention it. On that topic, should we update the title to match the article title?

Zuckeberg overruled 18 quacks and snake oil salesmen. I don't know why media still bow before "experts" when obviously so few of them are.

Questions, as the article is paywalled and I don't know:

* what in Earth is a "wellbeing expert".

This title sounds entirely made up, and I doubt there is such a degree.

If there is no degree, what were they basing their recommendations on?

What research? Papers?

If they have no formal schooling, what makes them experts or not?

Were these just Meta employees?

If they are, were other Meta employees equally skilled saying it was OK?

Ah well. Maybe the article says.

As someone who was working there in a technical role while all this shit was going on... I've never breathed easier than the day I quit

Paywall article, sadly but understandable

> They 'trust me'. Dumb fucks.

[dead]

Unironically, Zuckerberg should be in the Hague. We tried people in Nuremberg for less than he has done in his life.

Voters overrule countless well-being experts to keep alcohol available everywhere.

This seems like entirely normal human behavior at every level of society, no? Of course asking Zuckerberg is a bit like asking a bartender, but we know very well that it's not only bartenders who'd be against stopping alcohol sales.

It is strange to condemn Zuckerberg for doing this unless you're also willing to implement the all the other (vastly more important) advice from wellbeing experts that we as a society have pretty decisively rejected.

I don't see the problem. He's offering a completely legal product to an eager audience. If people want to propose banning social media in some capacity, that could and should be voted on-- but Zuck isn't violating any legal or moral law I've ever heard of, and he shouldn't have to guess what products will be illegal in 20 years and preemptively withdraw them.

If it's harming your mental health, stop using it. The "Delete App" button is right there.