CNN reports.
The cache of documents, some of which may include correspondences between Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and company executives, stem from a lawsuit in California that outlines a litany of allegations against Facebook, including claims about the company's alleged disregard for user privacy and the claim that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg devised a scheme that forced Facebook's rivals, or potential rivals, out of business.
Meanwhile, in the NYT, a philosopher (Matthew Liao) has an op-ed titled
"Do You Have a Moral Duty to Leave Facebook?/The platform has been used to disrupt elections, disseminate propaganda and promote hate. Regular users should ask if they are implicated in these failings." The answer has got to be no, right? Let me read this thing...
In moral philosophy, it is common to draw a distinction between duties to oneself and duties to others... Someone who finds himself mindlessly and compulsively scrolling through Facebook, or who is constantly comparing himself unfavorably with his Facebook friends, might... have a duty of self-care to get off Facebook.
From the perspective of one’s duties to others, the possibility of a duty to leave Facebook arises once one recognizes that Facebook has played a significant role in undermining democratic values around the world.... For now I’m going to stay on Facebook. But if new information suggests that Facebook has crossed a moral red line, we will all have an obligation to opt out.
So the answer is, indeed, no.
पोस्ट्स
४६ टिप्पण्या:
The NYT has played a significant role in undermining democratic values but I still read it for amusement and oppo research.
Dr. Matthew Liao uses the tools of philosophy to study and examine the ramifications of novel biomedical innovations.
He also has a book on childrens' right to be loved... Facebook gives them love with likes. So FB is good
No, the answer is yes.
Obi Wan was wrong about Mos Eisley.
Meanwhile, in the NYT, a philosopher
Philosophers are about as bad as "scholars".
Do You Have a Moral Duty to ignore the NYT?/The company has been used to disrupt elections, disseminate propaganda and promote hate. Regular readers should ask if they are implicated in these failings.
Moral expert is a difficult pose.
From the perspective of one’s duties to others, the possibility of a duty to leave Facebook arises once one recognizes that Facebook has played a significant role in undermining democratic values around the world....
Philosophical hyperbole is just dressed up bullshit.
When two moral experts disagree, the matter usually goes to court.
Going to court is not to get the court's judgment but for one moral expert to say enough is enough to the other moral expert.
Philosophers talking about ethics, who could take that seriously? Liao follows the well trod path of the corrupt, will to power crowd on the left, who blame FB for feckless Hillary's loss, tossing his intellectual cred into the toilet before he even gets to the meat of his argument.
There's also the moral inventor, who makes new moral discoveries. #MeToo is an example.
FB only exists so that we can distribute and receive "Likes."
rehajm said... Obi Wan was wrong about Mos Eisley.
Well, that was a LONG time ago, and Far FAR away.
It will have to be Europe that takes on big Stasi. They have way too much political control in the US. And by they, I mean Alphabet, that actually controls what you can see on YouTube and the answers you get to your web searches.
We have a moral duty not to read the NY Times
Human Engineering and Climate Change
Philosopher S. Matthew Liao and two other crazy people
"In this paper, we consider a new kind of solution to climate change, what we call human engineering, which involves biomedical modifications of humans so that they can mitigate and/or adapt to climate change."
"Pharmacological Meat Intolerance
While meat intolerance is normally uncommon, in principle, it could be induced by stimulating the immune system against common bovine proteins."
"Making humans smaller
Another more striking example of human engineering is the possibility of making humans smaller.
One way is through preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).
Another method of affecting height is to use hormone treatment ..."
"Lowering Birth-Rates Through Cognitive Enhancement
As a way to mitigate climate change, they proposed that Britons should consider having no more than two children per family.
So, another possible human engineering solution is to use cognition enhancements to achieve lower birth rates."
"Pharmacological Enhancement of Altruism and Empathy
Indeed, test subjects given the prosocial hormone oxytocin were more willing to share money with strangers and to behave in a more trustworthy way. Also, a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor increased social engagement and cooperation with a reduction in self-focus during a mixed motive game."
What if you had to argue that there is a moral duty to remain on FB? Piece of cake.
Moral duty? I have a moral duty not to support people who push the idea of a moral duty to punish others for wrong think. Facebook is certainly a waste of many people's time and is no angel in handling people's personal information. However, Facebook, for as long as it was allowed politically to do so, was a home for a exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of free speech. That Facebook is no longer such a home is due to people who press the ideas of moral ideals and duty to preserve same.
"...once one recognizes that Facebook has played a significant role in undermining democratic values around the world....
Just a wild guess here, but when Mr. Philosopher says "undermining democratic values", he isn't referring to Facebook's censoring or deplatforming non-prog views, is he? I assume he's using "democratic" in the now standard prog bizarro-world sense of "democratic"?
Everything Liao says about Facebook can be said about television, or print journalism.
I would posit that if one remains on FB after learning of their exploitation/mishandling of private data, then one may not be bright enough to consider moral implications.
Facebook is socially useful. Just don't give the company significant personal information.
Blogger Fernandistein said...
Human Engineering and Climate Change
Philosopher S. Matthew Liao and two other crazy people
It might be more popular if they call it Engineered Eugenics: Giving all people hope in becoming a member of the master race, regardless of race, religion, color, creed, sexual orientation or previous condition of servitude.
It'll happen sooner or later. We'll find out that Facebook, Google, Oracle, et alia, are as evilly-inspired as we imagined. The outright censorship of conservative voices, now a multi-year campaign, has revealed a great deal.
That these companies so willingly, so happily, helped and are continuing to help totalitarian regimes across the globe, notably China of course but plenty of Muslim ones, demonstrates, yet again, their through-and-through evil nature.
Liao misspells his own name. Last letter should be an ‘r’.
I'm sure liberals will give Facebook redlines the same serious consideration the Obama Administration gave Syrian redlines.
Because Hillary lost the election, we are now forced to live in a world where any viewpoint that goes against THE PARTY, must have a thought-crime warning label.
Thank, The Clintons.
The Clinton's pocketed personally from secret Russian deals - as told by the NYT - will that need a warning label? After all, anything negative about the Red Queen is all fake.
Morality is subjective so the only answer is 'no'.
I quit FB because my 'friends' increasingly behaved in unfriendly ways and so the platform ceased to be interesting and fun. The same thing happened with Twitter. Morality had nothing to do with quitting.
Shorter version: "The platform has been used to disrupt elections, disseminate propaganda and promote hate. That must stop. Only we should be allowed to do that."
the left are a collective pot of Castro-wannabees.
"disrupt elections"
how?
I'd like the left to explain how. How, exactly?
A few dorky ads that mocked Hillary = "disrupt an election"
Is that it? If not - do explain.
Until Facebook shuts down conservatives and Republicans, they will be considered unethical by the Left.
Are you really being moral if you leave Facebook but stay on Twitter, with it's mobs of virtue signalers looking to destroy the lives of others for thinking bad thoughts? Selective moral outrage would seem to be merely preening against the trendy online target at the moment, when the moral rot seems to be just as great, or greater, with the other online platform.
NYT sez: "Happy Birthday, Muhammad"
By HAROON MOGHUL
November 20, 2018
"The prophet was an outsider. Just like me."
The outsider was a prophet. Just like Haroon Moghul.
Facebook needs to die.
Kill the beast.
Because Hillary lost - we must:
Dismantle free speech
Dismantle The Constitution
Label anything negative about the Clintons as "propaganda".
Label anything not in line with THE PARTY - as fake news.
Dismantle the electoral college (even though it worked just fine for Obama)
Pay Mueller-Clinton revenge harassment scam 1 million a month in tax payer funding.
Use phrases like "Disrupt elections" - because the corrupt red queen was a lock.
So much to dismantle with the fall of the red queen. Rachel Maddow approves.
Half the current crop of hysterical, clueless SJWs exist solely because of Facebook. Otherwise they’d just be apolitical soap opera women. Facebook could swing full-on swastika-armband-synagogue-burning-Triumph-of-the-Will and these women would follow without hesitation or question. So forget about moral redlines.
Excessive stays in virtual environments are physically and mentally unhealthy, and an incentive for voluntary social isolation under a layer of privacy.
...disseminate propaganda and promote hate. Regular users should ask if they are implicated in these failings.
So does the NYT. It should go out of business.
The same argument can be said about the Democratic Party. Their refusal to accept election results, promote hate and division, violate election laws to receive overseas donations and commit vote fraud is well-documented.
Voters of Democratic candidates should ask if they are implicated in these failings.
There's an interesting article on Facebook's response to Google Plus:
Rounding off another beaded string of platitudes, he changed gears and erupted with a burst of rhetoric referencing one of the ancient classics he had studied at Harvard and before. “You know, one of my favorite Roman orators ended every speech with the phrase Carthago delenda est. ‘Carthage must be destroyed.’ For some reason I think of that now.” He paused as a wave of laughter tore through the crowd.
The aforementioned orator was Cato the Elder, a noted Roman senator and inveigher against the Carthaginians, who clamored for the destruction of Rome’s great challenger in what became the Third Punic War. Reputedly, he ended every speech with that phrase, no matter the topic.
Carthago delenda est. Carthage must be destroyed!
Zuckerberg’s tone went from paternal lecture to martial exhortation, the drama mounting with every mention of the threat Google represented. The speech ended to a roar of cheering and applause. Everyone walked out of there ready to invade Poland if need be. It was a rousing performance. Carthage must be destroyed!
...
The Carthago posters went up immediately all over the campus and were stolen almost as fast. It was announced that the cafés would be open over the weekends, and a proposal was seriously floated to have the shuttles from Palo Alto and San Francisco run on the weekends, too. This would make Facebook a fully seven-days-a-week company; by whatever means, employees were expected to be in and on duty. In what was perceived as a kindly concession to the few employees with families, it was also announced that families were welcome to visit on weekends and eat in the cafés, allowing the children to at least see Daddy (and, yes, it was mostly Daddy) on weekend afternoons. My girlfriend and our one-year-old daughter, Zoë, came by, and we weren’t the only family there, by any stretch. Common was the scene of the swamped Facebook employee with logo’d hoodie spending an hour of quality time with his wife and two kids before going back to his desk.
Common was the scene of the swamped Facebook employee with logo’d hoodie spending an hour of quality time with his wife and two kids before going back to his desk.
Sounds like the 50s.
I think Greece is a better comparison for Silicon Valley than Rome.
A lot of those city states were incredibly dysfunctional. Their prosperity relied on controlling trade through some strategic choke point, and their internal politics were incredibly vicious. Once a city controlled a choke point, they were incredibly hard to dislodge, so all that was left to do was to fight amongst themselves.
Rome was much more cohesive than Greece. Before the suppression of the Gracchi, Rome had gone something like 500 years without any civil bloodshed. They had a lot more outlets for an ambitious citizen, with a progression of civil and military offices.
The Silicon Valley model seems to be to identify some major choke point such as social networking or search, have an enormous and explosive growth phase as the choke point gets dominated, then have a long period of stasis and incremental change as the choke point gets exploited.
That's the Greek system, not the Roman. If you join after the growth phase, there's no equivalent to the Roman Cursus Honorum that would allow you to reach the top while supporting the larger goals of the organization.
The Roman system eventually led to civil strife, too. After the Punic Wars, Rome was so big that it was very hard to grow any farther. Additional growth required so many resources that whoever was in charge of those resources could advance much more easily by turning them against the state. Caesar started the Gallic wars with four legions, recruited even more with the spoils of the campaigns, and ultimately used them against his political rivals.
Still, the Romans were incredibly cohesive compared to the Greeks. The Greeks had civil strife inside of a single city with maybe a few thousand voters. The Romans kept it together through multiple world wars and huge military disasters that would have been easy opportunities to rebel if people really wanted to do that.
Do we all have an obligation to give up books because Silent Spting led to millions of deaths from malaria?
Let's remember what all the hissy fits are over. Speech. People saying things the NYT doesn’t like.
well certainly there was the jugurthan wars, which were similar to our desert skirmishes, out of the that rose marius and sulla, then came the social war, a hot war along the lines of our immigration strife, compounded by the annexation of several territories by the pathan mithridates the poison king,
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा