It's easy to blame those at the forefront for the damage they do, and rightly so.
Our system (free market, capitalism) runs on this sort of headlong-rush mentality. Some of the blame belongs with the no-rules deregulation of our society. It seemed like a good idea at the time (to some) but it means, some things are lost.
Like any sense of responsibility to the public. I.e. if everybody is doing it (unfettered access to social media for everybody) you just lose in the market if you don't play ball. You can be as socially-conscious as you like, but the market will crush you and leave you in the dustbin if you don't take every available customer opportunity. Leaving just the ruthless at the top.
It's inevitable, and so I believe 'blood on their hands' is probably true, but who's hands? Those who participate in the system as it is, or those who created the system?
I think you're eliding something about the social media companies that is true: they are uniquely exempted from regulation. A car company have to follow federally mandated safety rules, are answerable to the NHTSA, and can be sued by consumers if they do something negligent. That's the standard level of regulation most industries see in America.
There is no equivalent for social media and the only laws around it that does exist - section 230, legally protects social media sites from basically any legal liability with regards to lawsuits. A protection which is so extreme it's almost difficult to imagine what would be acceptable.
Take an example, let's say Zuck gets angry because Elon Musk has attacked him, Zuck can tell the engineers "Write me an algorithm that finds every bad word said about Elon Musk on Facebook and push those comments out to every single user, I want 3billion people seeing baseless accusations against Musk atleast once a day, and the more extreme the better, we're not done until credible calls for the assassination of Musk appear regularly on our site". And it'll work! We see that people pick up on how FB's algorithm works and will create that content to gain followers. But since it can all by done by algorithmically selecting from user generated content there's no liability for Facebook or Zuckerberg.
Section 230 only shields them from liability when they moderate user content. Prior to that, you either didn't moderate at all and were free from liability because it was the users words, or you did moderate and were liable for any user content on your site because the moderation implied editorial control.
I would argue that car companies experience similar protections, they just didnt need a specific exemption because product liability already precludes the manufacturer being sued for things the user does. I cannot sue Corvette if I get busted speeding in one of their cars, even if every ad they put on the TV shows someone driving a Corvette recklessly.
I also can't sue Corvette or whoever for selling me a car more powerful than I can handle if I burn out at highway speeds and crash.
Even though Corvette or Ferrari could change their product lines to not sell cars that practically encourage reckless driving, they are not liable for what users do with the cars. They have "editorial control" of a sort over what they choose to sell and they're not liable for what they choose to sell in the same way that Facebook is able to choose what posts to emphasize without liability for what the user posted.
> "Write me an algorithm that finds every bad word said about Elon Musk on Facebook and push those comments out to every single user, I want 3billion people seeing baseless accusations against Musk atleast once a day, and the more extreme the better, we're not done until credible calls for the assassination of Musk appear regularly on our site".
"Make me a car with so much horsepower that it can barely be driven safely, and then drop a Fast and Furious style ad to get the motorheads flying around the streets in them. I want at least 3 Paul Walker tier wrecks a week."
Still works for a car company. Sports car drivers are 43% more likely to have an at-fault accident on their record compared to the national average.
I own one, I'm not trying to call anyone out, but I really do think sports car manufacturers make vehicles that are very easy to drive dangerously, and then they advertise people driving dangerously in them. I wouldn't be surprised if Porsche 911 sales went up after Paul Walker died trying to drift in one.
Our system (free market, capitalism) runs on this sort of headlong-rush mentality. Some of the blame belongs with the no-rules deregulation of our society. It seemed like a good idea at the time (to some) but it means, some things are lost.
Like any sense of responsibility to the public. I.e. if everybody is doing it (unfettered access to social media for everybody) you just lose in the market if you don't play ball. You can be as socially-conscious as you like, but the market will crush you and leave you in the dustbin if you don't take every available customer opportunity. Leaving just the ruthless at the top.
It's inevitable, and so I believe 'blood on their hands' is probably true, but who's hands? Those who participate in the system as it is, or those who created the system?