Facebook is a 'Major Threat' To Public Health, Report Warns (cityam.com) 102
Facebook's failure to halt the spread of coronavirus misinformation makes it a "major threat" to public health, a damning new report has warned. From a news report: Research by activist group Avaaz found health misinformation relating to the pandemic was viewed 3.8bn times on the social media site in the last year. Just 16 per cent of all misinformation analysed in the study carried a warning label, with the remaining 84 per cent remaining online without a warning. Facebook has vowed to crack down on conspiracy theories and misleading content linked to Covid-19 amid concerns inaccurate information was spreading unchecked on the platform. A company spokesperson said the findings of the report did not "reflect the steps we've taken to keep it from spreading on our service." Facebook said it had applied warning labels to 98m pieces of content and removed a further 7m between April and June. The site added that it had also directed more than 2bn people to resources from official health authorities.
Facebook is a 'Major Threat'! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Agreed.
The good old days of letting who ever post whatever is no longer a thing.
I don't care if I am being fed Bias information, but I need truthful information. Bias information that is truthful can be rectified and moderated with a small amount of research. Posting untruthful information as fact, is far worse than bias information. Because if you want to dig further you find you are running into confects of information.
Back in the early 2000's we can laugh at the militia groups who think aliens are con
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So who's going to be "The Arbiter Of Truth"?
And what if they're wrong?
And if FB is going to go this route, editorializing, they become a PUBLISHER, not a PLATFORM.
Re:Facebook is a 'Major Threat'! (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF are all these people stupid enough to get their news, much less HEALTH information from Facebook or any other social media site?!?!
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, getting news and health information from an LED display is stupid or even worst a bunch of tubes.
Just as getting news and health from mashed up tree pulp is idiotic.
They are conduits, or transport mediums for information.
What makes information credible is the person providing, aggregating or explaining the information.
If you get a clip from a local news outlet, that makes the rounds on Facebook, is it more or less credible because it was seen on Facebook, then on your TV?
If you read an article reposted
Re: (Score:2)
"If you get a clip from a local news outlet, that makes the rounds on Facebook, is it more or less credible because it was seen on Facebook, then on your TV?"
That's easy. It's less credible, because Facebook is cherry picking those clips with an algorithm I don't trust.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's all potentially there. The bigger problem is Facebook prioritizing a clib from CBS/NBC/FOX/CNN at the same level as OANN/Brietbart and "Independent Researcher Says Wearing Masks Causes Cooties!"
Re: (Score:1)
"Cooties" is a pretty irreonsible and immature way of blurring a real issue.
The thing I know from direct experience is that wearing a mask is unpleasant. Unpleasant enought that after a short while I just have to leave the store and cease shopping.
Businesses have to be aware of this, and they should be holding the "public healt expert's" feet to the fire. Efficacy studies should be mandatory before masks can be mandated. It's costing these businesses real money and stunting the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally speaking, things you read in the morning paper, or things you see on TV, have a high likelihood of being mostly real, albeit with a ubiquitous editorial slant that most reasonably intelligent people can spot. This is because there is a fairly high barrier to entry for traditional media.
The internet however, allows pretty much anyone to say pretty much anything and try to pass it off as real. And there are a disturbingly high number of stupid people who believe anything they see online, especiall
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, many are. Half of me says let morons poison/infect themselves, but we would end up taking care of millions of self-inflicted invalids.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit like the old computer viruses, even the dumb ones. Ie, the one in Word (Excel?) that would read your Outlook contacts list and send them all an infected email. Was in a major international company, and IT clamed down hard. But every few weeks it would come back. Someone would show up back from vacation and the first thing they would do was double-click on that email attachment. And then after a couple of months of it being gone, boom, it shows up again from some nobody sales support person i
money (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Plus the preponderance of "Trust the experts! Not THOSE experts!"
It's just asinine.
"If it's on the Internet it MUST be true!"
Then you get shit like the Byron Donalds resignation hoax down in Florida.
https://twitter.com/ByronDonal... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And if FB is going to go this route, editorializing, they become a PUBLISHER, not a PLATFORM.
You're making a distinction without a difference. All platforms have terms and conditions of use. They are ALL publishers.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Under the law, there are very SPECIFIC differences. And the govern the liability such sites are required to undertake.
As a platform, they cannot be sued for content put up by their clients.
As a publisher, because they've taken editorial control, they are assuming responsibility for any and everything that goes up on their site. Thus they can be sued for it.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Under the law, there are very SPECIFIC differences. And the govern the liability such sites are required to undertake.
Which law, 47 USC 230?
As a platform, they cannot be sued for content put up by their clients.
That's right.
As a publisher, because they've taken editorial control, they are assuming responsibility for any and everything that goes up on their site. Thus they can be sued for it.
You are at best mistaken. No such distinction exists "Under the law".
Re: (Score:2)
That facebook or youtube are acting in good faith is laughable.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep moving those goalposts, you have no hope of winning otherwise. I admire your tenacity almost as much as I despise your disingenuity.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The goalposts of this issue are fairly well established.
You're the one trying to tweak the language...
Re: (Score:2)
First you appealed to the law, now you're appealing to language.
Make up your mind.
Re: (Score:2)
They are one and the same. Law (and the ideals encompassed by it) are expressed in words.
Re: (Score:2)
In a democratic society with freedom, democracy and justice as it's guiding principles ie not the USA, who are the arbiters of truth, I mean come on, how could you not know this, it is part of your government, a principle of it's foundation and part of it's constitution. The arbiters of truth and the courts. To test the truth or lies, you take them to court, before judge, jury and lawyers and haggle it out.
Now the real problem for Facebook, ignorance of the law is no excuse, if they delete what they call a
Re: (Score:3)
There's not a problem with letting anyone post anything they want....that's what the internet was founded upon really.
The PROBLEM is...why are people stupid enough to trust what is posted on the internet as a means to base their health needs, needs or world view upon??
Sure, you might hear something on the internet that might pique your interest, but you'd then go look to reliable sources to try to validate if it were true, etc...
Yo
Re: (Score:3)
People used to KNOW that the internet was full of people spouting off half cocked information and you didn't really believe it.
When did that change?
Eternal September [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People used to KNOW that the internet was full of people spouting off half cocked information and you didn't really believe it.
When did that change?
Probably when the number of users went from millions to billions.
More means worse. (Or stupider, or more ignorant, or whatever).
Re: (Score:2)
The PROBLEM is...why are people stupid enough to trust what is posted on the internet as a means to base their health needs, needs or world view upon??
The information being on the internet is not the problem. There are reputable sources on the internet. The problem is getting your information from sources which are not reputable, and then failing to verify the information. But that's a problem no matter where you get information, so the internet is clearly not the dividing line between sense and stupidity.
People used to KNOW that the internet was full of people spouting off half cocked information and you didn't really believe it.
I've gotten vast volumes of useful information from the internet. If you haven't, then the problem is where you're getting your information.
Re: (Score:2)
I see no difference between biased and false information, they both portray a false view the world, only selecting information that supports your argument while excluding things that don't, taking statements out of context, are all just as bad.
For example: "Covid-19 vaccine approved." Is a true statement, missing the information it was by Russia, not accepted that it was effective and safe by the WHO.
Re: Facebook is a 'Major Threat'! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What changed - essentially - is that everything has gradually become commercialised; monetised; and then politicised.
People trying to sell ideas that they believe will earn them money. Even indirectly, even just by giving them "visibility" as an authoritative source.
Then, inevitably, it all becomes politicised. People try to use political, legal, or whatever power they can use to silence others and promote their own messages.
The root cause? It's hard to say, but I would vote for the absolute worship of mone
Re: Facebook is a 'Major Threat'! (Score:2)
By "Facebook" they mean ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Popped in to say almost exactly this.
The problem isn't with Facebook, it's with people using a popular online service to disseminate false information.
There's no conceivable way for Facebook to be held responsible for the opinions and comments of its users, and the fact that people might take any particular thing they find on Facebook as being any more serious than an episode of any number of brain-dead sitcoms airing today isn't Facebook's fault either.
Re: (Score:2)
WARNING The claims made herein are controversial and potentially dangerous, neither proven nor disproven.
and
[ This post has been removed for advocating the murder of Mr. Smith. ]
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't with people disseminating information (good or bad)...the problem is people believing what ever someone SAYS on FB or other social media.
The old paradigm was that you generally took with a grain of salt what was said on the internet...and you went to more reliable vetted sources to validate things you read there....you didn't take them at face value.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it the fault of a person who happens believes a lie when they are told one?
You appear to think so. However, this overlooks the obvious fact that it wouldn't even be an issue if the person giving false information didn't do so in the first place.
I don't dispute that people have at least some responsibility to verify sources of information for themselves before assuming veracity, but really the very root of the problem is that some people like to spread false information more than it is a problem th
Re: (Score:2)
People shouldn't lie, but the do, all the time. If someone post lies and it is fraudulent it should be prosecuted in a court of law. It is not up to some random person probably paid minimum wage by the "benevolent" Facebook to decide what is true.
If people want to survive using the internet, and in the real world they need to learn how to detect lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is called Free Speech.
And while it would be best if people didn't mislead others (on purpose or not), as long as you have truly FREE speech, this will be one of the unfortunately side effects.
Lying to someone is generally NOT against the law.
The only times that is illegal is when you are under oath, or talking to the Fed
Re: (Score:2)
Lying to someone is generally NOT against the law.
The only times that is illegal is when you are under oath, or talking to the Feds.
Lucky for you, not knowing what the fuck you're talking about is not illegal.
Slander is illegal. Fraud is illegal. Incitement to violence is illegal. Those are all speech.
I guess you're one of those sources of bad information on the internet. Luckily, I don't trust anything you say, because I'm not that dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup... "No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?" -- George Orwell, Animal Farm -- apparently taken once again as an instruction manual instead of a warning.
Re: (Score:2)
People talking to other people. But how can that be fixed without every single post being moderated?
It can't be fixed at all. Moderation is a technique of limited value in certain situations. But there is absolutely no way of evaluating all possible claims or statements for truth, bias, etc.
That has to remain a matter of opinion - as are all value judgments. The best we can do is ensure free speech so that, whatever one person asserts that may be wrong, another person can explain why it is wrong. (In his opinion).
"And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field
The labels are a big part of the problem (Score:3)
In attempting to silence critics facebook has gone over the top with warnings appearing on material that doesn't actually relate. For instance a meme spreading about Kamala Harris stating she believed Biden's accusers had a warning on it. The fact checkers indicating she did agree with his accusers but not about rape allegations which haven't been made. The meme said nothing about rape and the fact check only showed it to be accurate.
Anyone who failed to actually click, read, and parse the fact check data would incorrectly think the result conflicted in some way with the content.
Re: (Score:2)
Source of truth? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are reasonable steps they can take. For example, if you put up a medical expert with an outlier opinion that's getting a lot of views, you should clearly state it's on outlier opinion, and give links or room for counter opinions.
Re: (Score:1)
If a medical-related post becomes popular enough, then yes I believe FB should be responsible for at least marking it as problematic.
As far as what the threshold(s) are for holding FB accountable, there are various metrics that could be applied. I discussed some such metrics in other replies, but listing and evaluating each one would be a much longer discussion.
Rather than try to put every detail into written law, perhaps an FCC-like agency should interpret and enforce the guidelines. However, lately the FC
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
source of absolute truth
The Ministry of Truth.
You are working with the latest edition of the Newspeak Dictionary, aren't you, citizen?
Re: (Score:2)
Given that even science has become politicized about the only way to discover truth for your self is to test the claims that what appears to be a wall in front of you really is a wall when you are told it is a wall, you can bang on it like a wall, and it feels like a wall but your inner denial still insists it's not a wall. You must start running head long at the wall to see if it really hurts when you hit this "imaginary" object.
{o.o}
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to medical advice, we need some kind of central authority, because big and expensive decisions need to be made per treatments. There are ways to give outlier viewpoints without being misleading. It's not all or nothing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We need to have sufficient checks and balances to reduce corruption and bias. But even an imperfect medical/safety authority is probably better than Wild West Free For All medical info.
If 20% of the population become retards after swallowing Clorox, mercury, lead etc., the 80% will have to take care of them. That's not a nation I want to live in. There's a point where mass freedom becomes mass freedumb.
Re: (Score:2)
If 20% of the population become retards after swallowing Clorox, mercury, lead etc., the 80% will have to take care of them.
Not necessarily. Just feed them more of what they ate in the first place, they've already demonstrated that they believe it's food.
People (Score:3)
I have a hard time blaming Facebook for this, Facebook isn't generating the content - much like vaccine fud its created & spread by individuals who are either a) stupid, b) have financial incentives (homeopaths, naturopaths, and other snake oil salesmen), c) nation state actors who see benefit in creating uncertainty in their perceived opponents.
Realistically its infeasible, and potentially an invasion of privacy for Facebook (or Reddit, or Twitter, or Youtube, or Ma Bell) to monitor every conversation in the system.
Re: (Score:2)
They are monitoring/editing out anything that does not support their ideology or fit their beliefs.
As for ma bell, if bell peeked(listened in) as normal operations they would loose their liability protection, if they did not, they were protected.
Facebook not only wants to monitor, they want to block, edit and enforce and still maintain their blanket liability protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is protected from any effects of their censorship because they bought the laws (from politicians and government bureaucrats) they need just like all good mega corps do.
Re: (Score:3)
"law was specifically written" and that IS the problem.
It's not the problem, it's the solution. Sites like Slashdot can't exist if they are liable for what users post.
Facebook is protected from any effects of their censorship because they bought the laws (from politicians and government bureaucrats) they need just like all good mega corps do.
The CDA predates Facebook by eight years. You have no idea what you're rambling on about. Go back to playing bingo with the other old folks in your home.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oil companies shouldn't be held accountable for global warming
We are all accountable for that, it is governments job to impose rules on clean oil production, efficient cars and ensuring efficient usage when necessary. I think they are accountable for the pollution they produce getting the oil, but not fact that society uses oil. If they intentionally go out of their way to stop the usage of cleaner sources of energy then they are accountable for that.
Wall Street shouldn't be held accountable for the 2007-2008
Yes they should they knowingly packaged up a product that was un-likley to be paid back, the specifically did something
Fixed headling (Score:2)
Corrected headline:
"Idiots Who Post and Share Misinformation are a 'Major Threat' To Public Health, No Matter What Platform They Use, Report Warns"
Remember when Apple got in trouble for using FoxConn to manufacture their phones with child labor? Shortly into the scandal we realize that Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Amazon, and Nokia also use the same exact factory -- but they didn't get in trouble for it. And nobody attacked FoxConn or China -- it was all Apple's fault. This is the same scenario.
Every day I se
Re: (Score:2)
I have two theories to try to make sense of why readers are focused on Facebook instead of human responsibility:
1. This isn't about misinformation, it's about political control and censoring subsets of information. We don't want people to stop spreading misinformation or both political parties will be harmed by informed voters. We want to t
WHO (Score:1)
Technically speaking, the biggest source of misinformation was WHO, initially. We shouldn't forget that before trying to blame the usual suspects.
Here's a radical idea (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Very much this.
An expert is someone who is physically unable to say "I don't know", which makes most expert opinions worthless. Don't listen to experts. Listen to people who can explain it.
Quack Magnifier (Score:1)
"Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater without cause" is often cited as a practical limitation on free speech. Health-affecting medical information can arguably fall into the same category.
If an organization that acts like or claims to be "news" interviews a quack who happens to have a medical degree without offering sufficient counter debate, that to me falls into the same category.
I don't know if social networks can police all such content, but it seems they are not trying hard enough so far. Perhaps we nee
Re: (Score:2)
"Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater without cause" is often cited as a practical limitation on free speech.
It's also one of the most mis-quoted cited examples of limitations on free speech, a mistake you fell into here. To begin with, the standard in your quote was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.
The legal limitation is imminent lawless action.
And (Score:2)
Twitter isn't just as bad?
censorship is the solution!? (Score:1)
3.8 billion times sounds big but (Score:2)
What proportion of views is that? There are a lot of views of a lot of things on Facebook. How many times is it just ignored? What proportion of people does it convince? The study is done by an activist group, how impartial is that study? I order to tell if it is a "major" threat it we need to know all these things. I am sick of people spitting out numbers, without proper analysis and claiming it is a major threat. I think that is a "major" threat :). Statistics are a tool and like all tools you need to kno
Hydroxychloroquine works, but Facebook disagrees? (Score:1, Troll)
Harvey Risch, MD PhD, Dean of Public Health at Yale has been making the case [newsweek.com] that politicizing medicine is killing people.
Other upstanding people have had the guts to stand up to the mob as well.
Just look at the data from Switzerland [twitter.com].
Fuck you "Orange man bad" idiots and your reactiona
Re: (Score:1)
I love that pardon! [They] got so scared, thinking someone was going to talk. Then they showed their colors, which are always related to orange.
Oranges were used by British sailors to prevent scurvy while traveling by sea. The USRDA for vitamin C is now "just enough to ward off scurvy" -- that is, it is by no means anywhere near what a body needs for optimal health. Vitamin C crystals appear to help me, although more than 1/4 tsp at a time have digestive effects.
Thanks for helping spread the word at thi
Flagging doesn't help (Score:2)
Just 16 per cent of all misinformation analysed in the study carried a warning label
That's not surprising -- I have a relative as a facebook friend and he loves (and believes) all sorts of conspiracy theories. I flag the harmful ones (I don't care much if he thinks aliens have landed in Paris, but when he posts "Vinegar wards off coronavirus", I flag it).
Around 30% of the posts I flag eventually get taken down by Facebook, the rest live on. But relying on flagging is a poor solution anyway, because by the time I see a post and flag it and someone at Facebook sees the flag and takes it down
Re: (Score:1)
For what reason do you think you are required to be a truth gatekeeper?
Lies have always existed.
Why now are you in such an urgent and prioritized rush?
You are correct about the use of memes. When demons stop communication, angels need to encrypt in some fashion.
God bless.
Re: (Score:2)
For what reason do you think you are required to be a truth gatekeeper?
Becase Facebook is unable or unwilling to step up and take that role?
Lies have always existed.
Lies don't always present a danger to public health
Why now are you in such an urgent and prioritized rush?
I thought it was obvious. Like I said, I don't care what off the wall theories he wants to believe in, but when he starts spreading bogus health information during a pandemic, his false data may get someone killed. I could reprioritize and wait until after the pandemic is over to report his bad posts, but then it would be too late to
Re: (Score:1)
Do you remember this XKCD? https://xkcd.com/386/ [xkcd.com]
Does your behavior seem like the guy not wanting to get laid in that cartoon?
Does this cognitive dissonance hurt your brain?
You should apologize to your relative, and learn from him. Deworming might help you accept the truth, as well.
God bless.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you remember this XKCD? https://xkcd.com/386/ [xkcd.com]
Yeah, that's kind of the whole point of flagging rather than engaging him in discussion - to get it taken down
Re: (Score:1)
Have you researched these facts that you are railing against?
I discussed our interaction with my wife, and she did just that; as, she knows that vinegar is useful for both external and internal cleaning.
Here's 64 pages of information on parasites and how to eliminate them; they're not just a third-world issue (I was treated for them when I visited the tropics, but we are lied to and told they aren't
Re: (Score:2)
Have you researched these facts that you are railing against?
If you're not going to bother reading my post, why reply and talk about something completely different? It's not a "fact" if it's not true.
I'm talking about using vinegar as a disinfectant against SARS-CoV-2 (i.e. COVID-19), not vinegar as a cleaning agent or as an anti-parasitic treatment. Its efficacy against parasites or bacteria has nothing to do with its efficacy against a virus and it's been widely reported that vinegar is *not* an approved disinfectant for SARS-CoV-2 whether for surfaces or taken int
Re: (Score:1)
I read everything, and respond to what I choose to. Just as you do. Here's a hint: sit on this for a few days before you respond.
Did you read the "Parasite Pill" 64-page PDF? If you did, you would understand that parasites are the infectious agent, and not viruses. https://files.catbox.moe/9rbtx... [catbox.moe] -- read this while you're considering your response.
Viruses are internal signaling agents, which parasites produce, similar to the proteins our bodies produce. High school biology told me they're "dead", hav
Re: (Score:1)
If the anon was you, makes sense to respond so you can see it.
A few days ago I peed out some dead ropeworms. The only trolls are the ones living inside me, and their time is short. My body is a "matrix" giving life to this evil, and I have no further use for evil. So I am cleansing the temple.
The turpentine treatment is working.
1 tsp, with 4 tsp sugar. The sugar opens their mouths; the turpentine takes them apart.
They hurt coming out but my thinking continues to be more clear.
You can help yourself in th
Re: (Score:1)
FYI, more has happened since I posted that. Last night as I was going to bed, it took longer than normal to fall asleep, which is usually 5 minutes.
Around the 10 minute mark, I felt a very, very slight movement at my anus, and a strong itch. Figured it was a pinworm, as I had already purchased the Pyrantel Pamoate Oral Suspension, when I bought the fenbendazole, but haven't used it yet -- change one variable at a time, from my software career. :)
Decided to just "lie through the sensation" and it stopped a
Re: (Score:1)
I took the Pyrantel Pamoate Oral Suspension yesterday. Pooped before bed; hurt a lot, and only a little came out.
For some reason, decided to turn the tiny piece of poop over after wiping -- and saw a white thread in it!
When I laid down and said my prayers, I did not feel anything moving as I drifted blissfully off to sleep.
Cures exist, and they're all around us.
Allopathic medicine is mostly a lie.
God bless.
Re: (Score:1)
The lies that the satanists, who are described in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, are pushing do present a danger to public health, you are correct! Lying liars who lie constantly, will not tell you who they really are. But if I tell you my name is Frank, you wouldn't call me Dave! So, it's confusing until discernment.
2+9+3+9 = 25; 5 by 5; bright and clear.
Viruses as infectious agents? Way back in high school biology, they taught me that viruses are NOT ALIVE.
Re: (Score:2)
The virus is 99.98% survivable/quote.
You're confusing the overall mortality rate with the infection fatality rate, which is somewhere around 1.5% (or, in other words, if you catch it, the virus is 98.5% survivable). We don't have a more accurate number because we're not doing enough testing to know the true infection rate.
And note that dying isn't the only thing you need to worry about -- you also need to worry about serious side effects like heart/lung damage, neurological effects, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
That's for sure! After death is the stuff of nightmares, if you did life wrong. Contrary to that elf-eared lady at one of AOC's events, we are NOT to eat the babies!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
God bless.
A little consistency, please. (Score:2)
"Research by activist group Avaaz found..." should be enough right there to tell people to throw the rest away. "Activist groups" should be expected to tell whatever warped tale they need to tell to support their position. Remember that for YEARS right here on Slashdot any time anthropogenic global warming was discussed and anybody quoted any expert from the oil/gas/minerals industries or from any right-leaning think tanks there were shrieks that such people could not be believed and should not even be hea
Coronavirus misinformation? (Score:2)
It is perfectly valid to remove posts praising bleach injected or drunk as a cure - because that is just stupid and very dangerous.
But they also remove posts that is critical of measures taken, arguments against facemasks and so on. That is pure political censorship and they do *way* too much of that.
What about liquor and cigarette? (Score:1)
Guns don't kill people ... (Score:2)
Facebook is not the root cause (Score:2)
The root cause is the inability or unwillingness of some people to think clearly and to inform themselves so that they have adequate information to think about.
Blaming FB is either misguided or misdirection.
If Facebook didn't exist, this would still be happening. On MySpace or whatever. And if MySpace or whatever didn't exist, it would be happening or GeoCities or whatever.
As long as someone believes that thinking and feeling are the same thing, this will be a problem for them. And indirectly, for the