The function of a system is what it does.

Meta knowingly hurt children for profit. It worked.

If we are in any way serious about technocratic solutions to social problems, this would be untenable, the company would be bankrupted, a new company would fill its place. No tears would be cried, nothing of value would be lost, half of hacker news would be chafing at the bit to build a better alternative for the newly opened market.

But that's not what happened. We allowed children to be knowingly hurt for profit.

The system is functioning as intended.

▲

gustavus 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...

	▲	Henchman21 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Purpose and Function aren't the same thing.

▲

riazrizvi 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not hurting children is a pretty popular idea. So why don't you make that technical product for children based on this foundation, and blow Meta out of the water? I love your conviction. Good luck.

▲

nclin_ 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not taking this as good faith, if you're devolving into sarcasm I assume you have no insight to offer.

▲

riazrizvi 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not sarcasm. I'm channeling you to a more productive focus for what I see as reaching beliefs/hopes. Try and make them happen instead of trying to convince other people they should happen. It will either temper/align them to the world as it is, or show the world what it can be.

	▲	nclin_ 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ok, well let's think about this with the same framework I'm trying to bring to the discussion above: system dynamics. Your comment has the effect of being flippant, condescending, and seemingly callous to the subject matter. When called out, you have backed up to an alternative explanation which is, again, massively condescending (I don't need channeling mate, certainly not from you). You have not engaged with the content in a good faith manner. So, standing back and looking at your comment in terms of its effects rather than what it claims to be its effects (AND the effect that making those secondary claims have - doubling down on condescension), it looks more like you're trying to bully me into changing my behaviour and viewpoint without meaningfully engaging with the content. Ironically, I'm feeling psychological reactance, so your comments polarized me against you (see the Backfire Effect) and deepened my convictions. I won't engage with bullies any further but to call them out, I'm hesitant to bring the conversation down to this level and give you any kind of air to begin with, but I think it's important to analyze discourse as it happens.

▲

canelonesdeverd 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Whatever point you're trying to make I hope you realize it's not a good look to phrase it like that.

	▲	5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]