Okay, so like, I'll defend them on this in principle. That said, can you address, like, you know, the myriad scandals you have BEFORE doing something ELSE? It's a bad look.
The timing isn’t great for the antitrust investigations. It’s not a particularly monopolistic move, but it creates new threat vectors for narratives of their potential villainy.
E.g. “Facebook’s market abuse could easily extend to coercing its millions of ad customers to use its cryptocurrency, enabling nefarious ad campaign spending for political causes without a way to trace the source.”
Do they really need to address scandals? My understanding was that there's always some ruckus but it seems to slide right off their backs in a matter of months.
> That said, can you address, like, you know, the myriad scandals you have BEFORE doing something ELSE
Meh, this feels like the Jordan Peterson "Set Your House in Perfect Order First" fallacy. Plenty of very flawed people (and presumably companies) have literally driven humanity forward.
Not sure I think Facebook's payment processing system is going to drive humanity forward, but insisting people clean up their shit first -- or even be generally reasonable human beings or companies -- excludes most artists, civil rights leaders, and technology companies.
