> 4 out of 5 child sex slaves exist thanks to Facebook's policies.

Even if your 79% number is correct, this does not follow. It like if someone said, 30 years ago, that 95% of total advertisements were in the classified section that 9 out of 10 retail sales happened thanks to the classifieds.

(I’m not trying to excuse Facebook’s behavior. But maybe criticisms of Facebook would be more effective if they stayed on track.)

▲

kelseyfrog 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Observer take: until your parenthetical it looks like you're supporting Facebook's actions by nitpicking weird edge cases.

▲

amluto 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I’m not nitpicking a weird edge case. I’m nitpicking a completely unsound inference. Even if Facebook indeed accounts for 79% of total instances of children being trafficked, it does not follow at all that removing Facebook from the picture would have reduced the number by anywhere near 79%.

	▲	kelseyfrog 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ok? It still looks like that. Maybe improve your writing or rhetoric if you want it to portray yourself differently?

▲

Lerc 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There lies much of the problem.

Nobody in Salem wanted to be seen to stand up for witches.

I have never had a Facebook account because I never liked what they do, but this 'evidence' against them seems like they are relying on the seriousness of the allegations more than the accuracy.

▲

ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The problem with witch hunts is witches aren't real; every witch you find is guaranteed to be a false positive.

A witch hunt that finds actual witches everywhere isn't really a "witch hunt" in the sense the term is usually used.

▲

Lerc 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You are saying that from our perspective. I don't think the argument that witches are not real would have gained you much ground back then.

We don't have the years on analysis of what actually happened for things happening right now.

While a lot of people feel a lot of certainty about all manner of social media harms, the scientific consensus is much less clear. Sure you can pull up studies showing something that looks pretty bad, but you can also find ones that say that climate change is not occurring. The best we have to go on is scientific consensus. The consensus, is not there yet. How do you tell if Jonathan Haidt is another Andrew Wakefield?

	▲	kelseyfrog an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The most important question is, how do you know you're not the next Andrew Wakefield? I'm genuinely curious how you keep your own epistemic house in order.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]