I think it's highly unlikely to be 100% innocent.

The C-suite has learned not to put so much incriminating stuff into writing (after Apple/Google etc. got caught making blatantly illegal anti-poaching agreements in personal emails from folks like Jobs), so proving that is probably gonna be tough.

▲

embedding-shape 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And also, does it really matter if it was on purpose or not, the end effect is that same, purposefully designing addictive patterns meant to make people spend more time on it, regardless of the mental health of the person.

I can kill a person with a car either intentionally or unintentionally. Of course one is worse than the other, but both are ultimately bad and you should face justice for either of them, even if the punishment might be different because of the motivation/background. But neither should leave you as "innocent".

▲

pyuser583 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When you are C-suite, every comment you make is a legal statement. The big concern (usually) is misleading shareholders.

	▲	ceejayoz 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> every comment you make is a legal statement Every comment people can prove you made. They learned putting it in email isn't ideal, for that reason. https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/steve-jobs-told-g... I'm sure these days when Apple and Google want to set up this sort of clearly illegal deal, their CEOs meet in person, or at least use phone/Signal.

▲

giraffe_lady 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The definition of innocent you two are using here is absurd to me. This is, at best, willful negligence. No one sat down and drew up a plan for the child screen addiction machine, maybe, but they noticed they were making it many times and chose to continue.

	▲	ceejayoz 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree, but I think even the parent poster's generous definition of "innocent" is a very low bar Facebook still can't jump over.