alt Hacker News> That may have been the result of those platforms and he profited from it but I doubt he purpose built them to that end, because his businesses do profit from an open society, not a closed one.
I don't know how you define open/closed society but as we've seen and we keep on seeing that this kind of manipulation only got worse AND is profitable. So how is your argument supposed to work?
I mean we're talking about a person who got where he is because he build a page where him and his co-students could rate other students on their looks.
I doubt he really cares...at all. Those hearings needed to be there so he can feel that there are still borders but it doesn't mean that he won't find other ways in the future and use it for his evil purposes just like the times before.
I mean is there anything that could show as that he became a new human being? With higher levels of morality? The person who abolished all the safeguards on his platforms as soon as Trump was elected?
Why should anyone ever trust this man again?
> In a democracy, you, I and we are the pronouns when it comes to who is responsible. One greedy nerd can't end a democracy of people who have some degree of virtue, education, temperance and civil sense in them. If that happens you already had much bigger problems.
Having feelings, wanting to be seen or heard, reacting to attractive people in a different way, and so on are not "problems". This is what makes us human.
This is also what people like Zuck are misusing for their own greed. Sure he can't end democracy by himself. He can help it with large sums of money and tools, though. And this is what he's doing.
Shifting the blame and responsibility onto the whole population is, very mildly said: misleading.
>So how is your argument supposed to work?
My argument's pretty straight forward. Manipulation on the platform isn't profitable for Mark Zuckerberg. What's profitable is selling ads. Making teenagers anorexic doesn't increase his revenue, it just creates problems for him.
Sure he doesn't care either as long as it doesn't, I agree but also he shouldn't because he's not the nation's parent. I think Zuckerberg's due diligence is done when he doesn't interfere or steer politics, he has not, and should not have responsibility for how people use his apps.
It's not Zuckerberg or "the algorithm" that's manipulating people on Instagram, it's people manipulating other people. What's making you human isn't feeling or wanting to be heard, you have that in common with your cat or dog, what's uniquely human is being able to manage and control those impulses. In a democracy it is not Zuckerberg's fault that a largely infantile population cannot manage their media consumption. That's like blaming the guy at the liquor store for the fact that you're drunk at ten in the morning.
I'm not shifting blame, in a democracy people get the institutions, companies and leaders they deserve, by definition.