Skip to main content

View Diary: Facebook is Murdering Dogs (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You don't seem to understand (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dream It Real, KenBee, Calamity Jean

    There was a sudden, unnanounced shift in a fundamental use of provided infrastructure. As people migrate away from the business practice, animals die. The migration will take LOTS of time.

    Facebook's unwillingness to allow an opt-out, or to change it back on those in the experimental group who are seeing actual deaths is not defensible.

    •  You seem to think FB has obligations to you. (12+ / 0-)
      There was a sudden, unnanounced shift in a fundamental use of provided infrastructure.
      See, there's where you lose me. Facebook isn't "infrastructure," like roads or phone lines; it's a service, one that is being offered to you and your organization to use for free in return for providing Facebook's advertisers with your data and attention.
      As people migrate away from the business practice, animals die. The migration will take LOTS of time.
      That might have been something your organization might have considered before putting all your eggs in Facebook's basket.
      Facebook's unwillingness to allow an opt-out, or to change it back on those in the experimental group who are seeing actual deaths is not defensible.
      Sure it's defensible. Their defense is "you are free to use or not use what we provide at any time." You haven't paid them for the service, and thus there's no real or implied contract between your organization and them that obligates them to keep the service running in any certain way.

      It seems to me that if dogs' lives are at stake, the mistake was in entrusting those lives to a free service where the company offering the service was completely free to change the settings or alter your arrangement at any time.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:07:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dream It Real, KenBee

        Regardless of facebook's not being hard infrastructure like a road, you are depending on semantics to defend vile business practices.

        The fact is that it became infrastructure - and not for me, read more carefully, I am quite clear about saying that in my case, I don't like it but it doesn't matter - and as this is a change applied to only a few pages, and one they are not doing for anything other than an experiment on those pages, saying that they are justified in sticking to that experiment in cases where it is doing great harm is just you arguing for the sake of hearing your own voice.

        •  No, that's not true at all. (10+ / 0-)
          The fact is that it became infrastructure
          No, the fact is that some organizations have started treating it like infrastructure.

          That does not create an obligation on Facebook's part to operate as if Facebook were infrastructure.

          Let's use an analogy here: Suppose I have a house with a big front yard on a corner that experiences a large amount of foot traffic—and suppose that people start cutting across my lawn instead of walking all the way around the corner on the sidewalk.

          And then, let's say, I get sick of there being this line across my lawn where repeated footsteps have worn away the grass, so I decide to pave that stretch across my lawn.

          But a while later, I decide that I'd like to reclaim my front yard, maybe put in a fountain or something, so I close off the paved path on my front lawn and put up a fence so that people have to walk all the way to the corner again.

          About a week after I've put the fence up and torn out the paved path, a man is being chased by an axe-wielding murderer and is trying to get to the police station around the corner for safety—and, unable to cut the corner, he is caught by the murderer and killed.

          You would suggest in this situation that I am to blame for this man's murder, because I closed off the path running through my front yard.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:25:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That logic (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dream It Real

            is more tortured than the dogs being dragged into gas chambers today.

            •  Then please enumerate exactly where... (6+ / 0-)

              ...my analogy breaks down.

              Facebook's sidewalk isn't a city-owned sidewalk but a privately-owned one; that these organizations are treating it like infrastructure doesn't make it so, nor does it create an obligation on the part of Facebook to keep things running in a way that is most convenient for these organizations.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:33:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your sense of legality (0+ / 0-)

                is trumped by your lack of a sense of ethics.

                •  "Obligation" isn't necessarily... (5+ / 0-)

                  ...all about "legality."

                  Surely we would agree that Facebook is in no way legally obligated to offer this free service to anyone at all. But you are suggesting that they are ethicallyobligated.

                  You're suggesting that because these organizations have (with absolutely no agreement from Facebook to this effect) become dependent on a free service offered by Facebook, Facebook is now ethically obligated in perpetuity to keep this service running in the way that these organizations find most convenient.

                  If Facebook fails to keep this service running in the way these organizations find most convenient, you write, it is Facebook that is ethically culpable for the death of these dogs whose lives are on the line—not the people who actually engage in the action of killing the dogs, and not the people or organizations who chose to make the lives of these dogs dependent on Facebook's service rather than using a different service that offered more in the way of user control.

                  So, to recap: To you, Facebook is "murdering dogs," and those who suggest otherwise "lack a sense of ethics."

                  If nothing else, you have a profound gift for hyperbole.

                  "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                  by JamesGG on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 03:10:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Would you be making the same (0+ / 0-)

                    argument if twitter ran an experiment in the middle of the Arab Spring that cost lives?

                    Do you not understand that there is a difference between obligation and ethics, between what the law calls for and what is the right thing to do?

                    Do you think it was right for Bain to jack $350M of auto bailout money? It was legal, but was it right?

      •  Actually, you're right, I do (0+ / 0-)

        They have a responsibility to everyone. It's called social responsibility. There is NEVER an argument to be made that if an unintended consequence that costs lives of a business action can easily be reversed at no cost it shouldn't be done.

    •  Of Course It's Defensible (10+ / 0-)

      Facebook is completely agnostic about what people are using the groups for.  Maybe there's a Facebook page that is secretly being used to trade in human sex slaves, and this modification has saved MILLIONS of people from slavery!

      Even if that were true (which I don't believe it is of course) FaceBook wouldn't deserve credit for stopping the sex trade anymore than they deserve blame for killing dogs.

      Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

      by TooFolkGR on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:09:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If only they would realize the money you sent them (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      debedb, Trobone

      to pay for using their site was intended make them keep it like you prefer! There must be some sort of legal remedy. . .

      "Mitt Romney looks like the CEO who fires you, then goes to the Country Club and laughs about it with his friends." ~ Thomas Roberts MSNBC

      by second gen on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 06:53:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So post an announcement on the Facebook page, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrugalGranny, second gen, JeffW

      telling people to go somewhere else to follow through on the rescues.  Facebook isn't the only fish in the sea.  If they lose people who go elsewhere for needed services, Facebook will lose (more) money, and that's all they care about.  

      Renewable energy brings national global security.     

      by Calamity Jean on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:24:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Jesus H. Christ (0+ / 0-)

        the point is that during the migration, dogs are dying. They could be saved during that period by customer service clicking on a setting.

        That's called social responsibility. Something people used to give a shit about at this site. Now, this type of corporate not-giving-a-shit is considered okay.

        It's pathetic how difficult the minor change it would take to save lives and suffering seems to be to comprehend.

        •  Jesus H. Christ, yourself. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JeffW

          Clicking on a link and waiting for it to come up takes, what?, ten seconds?  I sincerely doubt that saving ten seconds is really going to make a significant difference.  

          Renewable energy brings national global security.     

          by Calamity Jean on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 10:31:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site