Facebook does more good than harm

Ave!The Drug AnalogyI think that Pro’s metric of harm is useless for any meaningful analysis. He argues that if something causes harm, but it doesn’t cause harm in most people, then it’s fine. This is a patently absurd way of thinking.Consider the recall of the drug Baycol. This cholesterol fighting drug was linked to the deaths of thirty-one people, and adverse health effects in many others. If Pro’s metric of harm is correct, this drug shouldn’t be recalled. We should continue to allow people to purchase a drug that can lead to their death, so as long as it doesn’t lead to death in the majority of the people who take it. No, I argue. It’s obvious that such a drug should be recalled before more people are hurt.My main point is this: the fact that something does not cause harm in the majority of people who use it does not mean that the thing is harmless. Pro seems to think this about Facebook, but it’s a complete non-sequitur.Facebook and Mental HealthPro points out that it’s only 12% of people who reported feeling anxious, so therefore, the other 82% must be perfectly fine. Unfortunately, Pro glossed over a very important detail in that citation.“Dr. Kathy Charles of Edinburgh Napier University released a study early last year, which showed that, of the 200 people she surveyed, a majority felt some type of stress in relation to the social network, and 12-percent said the site makes them feel anxious.”It’s not that the 88% are doing fine. In fact, the majority of them report stress in relation to the social network. Some people might argue that there’s a difference between correlation and causation, but this doesn’t matter because the people interviewed explicitly stated that Facebook was the cause.Pro argues that because somebody has joined Facebook, they must automatically think that the benefits are more than the risks. This is irrelevant to the topic. Somebody may think that Facebook provides more benefits than harm, but that does not mean this is the actual case. A subjective feeling has no relation to objective fact in this subject.Why would it matter if people could also be cyber bullied on other social networking sites? The important point is that it happens on Facebook frequently. Pro’s logic doesn’t add up here. If I saw a lion at a zoo in North America, is the proper response ‘’Oh, you could get bit in Africa too, so let’s go pet him!” Clearly not. The fact that you can get cyber bullied in other places does not mean you’ve solved the problem with Facebook.Facebook’s PoliciesI already answered Pro’s objection in the last round. Yes, it’s hard to keep track of billions of users and enforce the rules every time. I didn’t hold Facebook accountable to that. I did hold Facebook accountable to the fact that their registration process is laughably easy to bypass if you’re underage. They can’t stop every underage user, but they can do something about fixing their registration process to make it harder for underage users to get online. This is the point I made in my last round, and it goes untouched.Facebook and Physical HealthI return to my lion analogy: the fact that the negative effects of using x can also be experienced while using y does not mean that the harm of using x is somehow mitigated.Contrary to Pro's claim, a link to binge eating and a link to obesity are not the same exact points. To think that is just categorically wrong.Pro's Case: Facebook can boost self-esteemPro's source for this claim is broken, so there's no way for me to answer this argument.Organ DonationSure, some people have pledged to donate organs on their Facebook profile. But what is the actual effect this has had? Considering that most social networking websites decline after a while (the evidence shows Facebook is on the decline), will Facebook even be around by time its users die in any large amount? For this to work, Facebook has to be around when the person who agreed to donate their organs dies. The evidence shows that Facebook won't be around this long. (http://bgr.com...)Facebook can start movementsThis is a double standard on Pro's part. When someone does bad things with Facebook, he says the user is to blame, not Facebook. Yet, when someone does someting good with Facebook, he's quick to give Facebook credit for it. Why is this the case?Facebook promoting businessConceded, but is money more important than the harm Facebook does to its users?Vale!