Did you read my comment, instead of framing it as ideological?
Such a framing is a quite interesting way to dismiss the issue at hand isn't it?
Do you share the aknowledged reality that Meta has fostered genocide in Myanmar, as per their own admission in front of Congress, and that Instagram has led teenage girls to depression, as per admitted by internal documents seen in discovery that prove how they weaponized those same mechanisms?
If YES, why do you think Meta is a normal company, with regular "contradictions", and why do you frame as ideological someone who just reminds people of what Meta and Zuckerberg do?
If NO, how exactly do you justify your answer that negates what we know for a fact, and/or how do you justify Meta's behavior?
> An ideology is a set of beliefs or values attributed to a person or group of persons, especially those held for reasons that are not purely about belief in certain knowledge,
You are passing judgment and using emotionally charged words (such as "weaponizing", which also implies intent and motivations not in evidence) to make a point about what you consider moral. And you use your judgement to set up a completely false dichotomy with incoherent terms (I have absolutely no idea what you think the phrase "normal company" means here), while completely ignoring my point.
That is ideology.
My opinion of Meta as a company is not relevant to anything I have said so far.
It does not matter whether you are right or wrong about any of this.
My objection is to your rhetorical style, and to the placement of your arguments in an inappropriate forum. These objections do not require that I agree or disagree with you about anything at all. I am not interested in debating morality with you. That is the point.
As far as I can tell, you did not even stop to question whether I work for Meta in the first place. (I do not.)
I am pointing at quite a big factual moon, but you prefer to dissect my rhethorical finger.
If there is a rhetoric problem here, is how obfuscating this very clear ethical discourse in rhetoric disquisitions is just an elegant way to toss the ball off the field. A diversion, that only serves the perpetuation of the status quo.
You are not "pointing at" the moon; you are putting it somewhere it does not belong, and then getting defensive when people complain about the effect on the local change in gravity as if you can't understand why people would object to that.
I am tossing the ball off the field because this field is intended for a different sport entirely, and there is already a game in progress.
