> At what point of scale do people start imagining they have a right to make demands on how something somebody else built and owns should be run?
At the point where the machine that is built starts having very real external effects.
Facebook has been used for artificially amplifying some incredibly extremist social movements.
It is a reasonable expectation to put some limits on that in the same way that we would want to put some limits on say… a family owned pharma company that actively encouraged doctors to prescribe addictive drugs.
Even Youtube premium, where I'm supposed to be the customer, I feel like advertisers and content creators are treated better than me, and I'm not being served (youtube shorts, and lots of clickbait that I can't turn off are pushed on me...all it would take is a simple clickbait sentiment analyzer).
The rate at which is gives teenagers depression is enough of a reason, imo. There's broad consensus this stuff is detrimental to young people's mental health. Facebook claiming otherwise is akin the Philip Moris company testifying in congress that it's actually completely normal for a baby to be born with a small head.
> ...akin [to] the Philip Moris company testifying...
Indeed. If only there were some analogy to a massively profitable industry, woven into the social fabric of the country, that was then found to be harmful.
Why, you'd expect that said industry would fight tooth and nail against regulation, perhaps stringing things out for decades...
For those who weren't there, two things were simultaneously true in the 80s, 90s, and 00s: (1) we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt cigarettes gave people cancer & (2) we still had smoking sections right next to non-smoking ones, throughout businesses of all sorts.
All because it was too hard to change, and there were too many addicts to make a change.
... before ultimately yielding to the weight of scientific evidence against it. But not before killing people who didn't have to die if they'd heeded warnings earlier and pivoted.
Or, you know, this could be a completely different scenario, and Meta could be acting out of altruism with its users best interests at heart.
At the point where the machine that is built starts having very real external effects.
Facebook has been used for artificially amplifying some incredibly extremist social movements.
It is a reasonable expectation to put some limits on that in the same way that we would want to put some limits on say… a family owned pharma company that actively encouraged doctors to prescribe addictive drugs.