They have people who's sole job is to make sure Facebook users are on the platform for as long as humanly possible. The company goes out of its way to subvert your desires to make it hard to leave (such as changing sorting by most recent so that you have no idea what content you've seen before). That's as close as you can get to being a pusher.
That sounds like a job that you would find at pretty much any mobile gaming company with a free-to-play model. Don’t get me wrong, Facebook has had some pretty gross practices over the years, but it doesn’t exactly rot your teeth and make you steal from your mother.
Facebook and mobile gaming companies are both taking their playbook from gambling companies. Casino addiction doesn't root your teeth, but it certainly does convince a lot of people to steal from their mother. It's a very unethical business model.
Eh, I think psychology is the root subject here but gambling companies tend to be the best at it. What do you propose though since you seem to find business models that play to psychology unethical?
And it's a job that has existed way before Facebook too-- Disneyland is designed to be lovable and make you spend money. TV shows are designed to keep you hooked and on the edge for the next episode. Movie theatres are designed to make you crave soda and popcorn. Candy and soft drinks are designed to be sugary so people keep wanting more.
I think all this is terrible-- the world ends up becoming landmine after landmine of companies trying to pull you in and get your money-- but lets keep in mind it's nothing new or unique. Just standard business in an free market economy.
Facebook can take a hard ethical stance against allowing teens on the platform. Or, they could add a simple "if" statement on age, and not allow teens to be targeted for advertising.
Instead, they chose to implement the minimum legal requirements of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which prevents companies from collecting certain information from kids under 13, and kids who are under 13 just lie about their age. Facebook has really good data, collected for advertising, to know that kids are signing in, and do not make an effort to stop it, beyond a stern "Don't lie to us" phrasing in their TOS.
I think the point made here, especially with Disneyland, Candy, and Television is that children are targeted and manipulated for profiteering. And that's surprisingly legal.
But it is not ethical. Each company has a choice. I hope public opinion will see FB as unethical and unforgivable in the future.
CocaCola can take a hard ethical stance against diabetes. It is one of the deadliest diseases in the world. They could add a disclaimer to their bottles the way tobacco companies are obliged to warn about the effects of long-term smoking.
Instead, they chose to implement the minimum legal requirements set by the FDA with a tiny number on tucked-away table. CocaCola has really good data on how much sugar their drinks have and they do not make an effort to really surface it to people assuming they are acting in their own interest, will read the label, and that will be enough to deter them from drinking a third can.
And the same can be said about pretty much any other company. They all implement "the bare minimum" required by law if it potentially affects their numbers.
> I think the point made here, especially with Disneyland, Candy, and Television is that children are targeted and manipulated for profiteering. And that's surprisingly legal.
Yes, but is it that surprising? We can't expect companies to regulate themselves.
> But it is not ethical. Each company has a choice. I hope public opinion will see FB as unethical and unforgivable in the future.
I agree, though I also think Facebook is a much lesser concern than other companies out there. That's not to say it should be put to the side or nothing can be done before something is done about big Tobacco, big Pharma or even big Sugar. I just think comparing it to a drug company is disingenuous, and lessens the urgency of dealing with companies dealing with proven, dangerous physical addiction.
Although, the whole "They have people who's sole job is to make sure Facebook users are on the platform for as long as humanly possible" part makes me the most skeptical.
If Facebook is making a better product, one that people want to use more, with the intention of keeping users on the platform, how can we fault them?
Do we blame TV makers for wanting to sell additional techniques?
Facebook seems to conduct its business in a relatively ethical way, it certainly doesn't seem to go out of its way to make it addictive, they're preocupied with making it more functional - they're adding features constantly.
