6 ms·

What I don't get is why Facebook's users don't just disengage. Instead, Facebook is treated as some basic human right. Here, with some vague "responsibilities a

What I don't get is why Facebook's users don't just disengage. Instead, Facebook is treated as some basic human right. Here, with some vague "responsibilities akin to a utility, but not quite that far". I mean, that really sounds kind of, well, made up. Who's defining these responsibilities? In fact, Facebook is not a public utility, but a private company. And, unlike with a public utility, the public to which they are supposedly responsible aren't even their customers, but are their product. This is not to defend them, and I'm not a Facebook fan. In fact, quite the contrary. I believe Facebook's entire model is based on the routine abuse of its users. That's all the more reason I can't understand why people who are uncomfortable don't just...stop.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
You misunderstand me. My apologies for not explaining properly. I'm not saying people are entitled to Facebook; I'm saying if users use Facebook, regulations should be in place to dictate to Facebook how those users should be treated. Corporations will take as much as they can, which is why regulations exist.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > I'm saying if users use Facebook, regulations should be in place to dictate to Facebook how those users should be treated. As much as I hate what Facebook is doing, I don't think this is anywhere near the right answer. Besides, do you really think governments want to see less information collected, when having that information makes it so convenient for them to obtain?
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > As much as I hate what Facebook is doing, I don't think this is anywhere near the right answer. That's how regulations work. You dictate to a private business its responsibilities to its customers or users. I don't understand why that isn't the right answer (although Europe seems to do far better about this than the US). > Besides, do you really think governments want to see less information collected, when having that information makes it so convenient for them to obtain? This is a tired argument. The government is huge. Not every department is the NSA, nor is every department the FTC or FCC.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      > That's how regulations work. You dictate to a private business its responsibilities to its customers or users. I don't understand why that isn't the right answer (although Europe seems to do far better about this than the US). You should, at the very least, already know that this is not a universally held position, but rather one that many people oppose as vigorously as you support it. Without descending into politics, suffice it to say that doing so has no particular guarantee of solving more problems than it creates. Quite apart from the people who work at and run Facebook having rights, too. People use Facebook voluntarily. "Facebook but not evil" is a viable business model.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        People use lots of businesses voluntarily. We still regulate them. That's probably not going away.
  - e12e 11y ago
    Well, governments gave us TOR. So just because some parts of government(s) want to listen in, record and have available all the things -- this isn't universal.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  Thank you for the clarification. But, you're still sort of implying that it's an entitlement by suggesting that they be regulated, and that's what I was keying on. Because the choice exists to either accept their terms and use it or reject their terms and not use it. But, what you are saying is that you reject their terms but, rather than disengage, you insist on using it, but believe the government should forcibly change those terms to your satisfaction. BTW, they are actually regulated to some extent. Among other things, they spell out what they will and won't do. If they renege, then there are civil and possibly criminal remedies available.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > Because the choice exists to either accept their terms and use them or reject their terms and not use them. But, what you are saying is that you reject their terms but, rather than disengage, you insist on using it, but believe the government should forcibly change those terms to your satisfaction. How is this any different than unenforceable EULAs or employment contracts that overreach? You can ask me to sign something that violates the law; I can still use your service or become employed by you; that does not remove my protections granted under the law, but nullifies the parts of your contract or agreement that are unlawful.
    - unclebucknasty 11y ago
      But, no one is denying users access to the courts to test the enforceability of FB agreements. On the contrary, I am saying that it is precisely a remedy that is available to them if that is the question. But, in most cases, those who demand regulation or otherwise take umbrage with FB's practices in the current context are not questioning the legality of their terms, etc. Instead, they are asking, for instance, that the government proactively force FB to change practices with which they do not agree, irrespective of any legal tests. The article itself literally speaks to people being endangered by a FB policy. All of this begs the question: at what point is it simply not worth it? It's nearly satire that people believe FB to be so critical that not even personal endangerment will deter them from using it. Using FB is neither a requirement for survival, nor a fundamental human right. If their policies are endangering your life or simply not agreeable, then there's no need to launch a crusade. Just sign out.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
> What I don't get is why Facebook's customers don't just disengage. Convincing all your friends and family to switch sites is not easy. Social networks provide quite a lot of lock-in. And while alternatives exist, they don't have the momentum, the audience, or the lack of friction. Replacing Facebook is not primarily a technical challenge.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  True. But, if the majority of people, including your friends and family, don't care, then is it really Facebook's problem? And, if the relatively few people who do care still continue to engage despite their concerns, then is that an even clearer message to FB that it's not a real problem for FB?
- sethammons 11y ago
  I don't have a Facebook account. Many of my friends and family apparently do. I manage to text, email, call, or visit from time to time. We have things to catch up on and talk about when we do, in part because we are not voyeurs into one another's life. Could you replace your online social network with more first communication channels? I don't intend to sound hollier than thou. I could be missing something amazing by not being on social networks, but I have not noticed it.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
For the same reason people uncomfortable with phone companies don't ditch their phones - added value + network effect. For Facebook users (of which I am one), this service is an extension of our real-life social circles. We have (most of) our families, friends and colleagues there. Facebook Messenger is probably the primary IM for personal communication these days. You may dislike aspects of it, but there's no denying that Facebook is the best way of keeping the weak ties[0] (and turning them into strong when needed) that exists today. We may bitch about the specifics, but the truth is - it enhances life too much to just leave it. Ditching Facebook is not impossible though. The younger generation seems to be migrating towards Whatsapp and Snapchat. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  EDIT: Clarity There are regulations around FB, as well as civil remedies for violations of their terms, privacy policy, etc. They lay out how they will treat users and are beholden to follow it, lest face civil (and possibly criminal) penalties. As a user, you decide whether those terms are sufficient. If the people with whom you communicate can't be convinced to communicate with you otherwise, then why would you have a right to demand that FB accomodate your preferences? That's a sincere question. And, honestly, we have more choices than ever to communicate with people. Personally, I refuse to upload my life to FB for their monetization. But, much as I dislike some of FB's practices (and its fundamental revenue model), I don't see why people believe they should be able to dictate nuances of their various policies as if Facebook owes them the right to use their service on their terms. If people think that that what FB offers is worth the price, then they are getting exactly what they paid for. If they don't think it's worth it, then they should simply move on.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Ensorceled 11y ago
My stepson tried to stay off Facebook. But then he started missing parties, not being part of evening conversations, had difficulties with groups at school, was missing out on his theatre group. If you just ... stop ... you may find your social circle leaving you behind.
- travv0 11y ago
  I stopped when I was in school and didn't have a problem with any of these things. Maybe he just needs to find closer friends.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  My sibling comment here is being downvoted for saying he needs closer friends. Maybe that's blunt, but if he is unable to maintain friendships without FB, then something is going on there that shouldn't just be accepted as normal. And, if what you're saying is universally true for kids, or even nearly so, then I'd say that we (collectively, as adults) have failed them in strolling hand-in-hand with them into a world wherein personal relationships are not viable without a profiteering third-party intermediary.
  - Ensorceled 11y ago
    It's getting downvoted because they jumped from "he was missing out on party invites and facebook conversations" to "he can't maintain friendships and should get new friends". It's a bit extreme of a position.
    - unclebucknasty 11y ago
      Well, I don't think he/she said "he can"t maintain friendships". The suggestion was that he needed closer friends. And, I think it's reasonable to question how close his friendships are if they are dependent on Facebook. But, that's probably true of society in general, wherein we seem to be trading quantity for quality where personal relationships are concerned. And the generation coming up now has almost no reference point as to any other way.
unclebucknasty 11y ago
Correction: FB is obviously no longer a private company. Still, being publicly traded is far different than being a public utility.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
"You can choose to keep in touch with your circle of friends, get invites to their parties, and so forth; or you can choose to remain concealed from your violent ex-boyfriend. Pick one." That's kind of a douchey thing to do to people, even if you're a private company.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  I'm seeing this really late, but FWIW: I'm no FB fan but, here, FB is not "doing" anything to anyone. They offer a service, and a social one at that. If people choose to use it to keep in touch with their entire social circle, then why is FB responsible for ensuring that no one has a violent ex-boyfriend, nosy boss, etc.? If using FB will endanger your health, then don't use it. That's the missing option in your choice set. BTW, this is what happens when people outsource their relationships to a profiteering third-party. No one seems to question the wisdom of that "choice". Instead they want to force FB to be something it never was or claimed to be.
rmc 11y ago
> In fact, Facebook is not a public utility, but a private company. Public utilities have been privatised, and are required to operate under strict regulation. Why not the same for FB>

toomuchtodo 11y ago

You misunderstand me. My apologies for not explaining properly. I'm not saying people are entitled to Facebook; I'm saying if users use Facebook, regulations should be in place to dictate to Facebook how those users should be treated. Corporations will take as much as they can, which is why regulations exist.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
> I'm saying if users use Facebook, regulations should be in place to dictate to Facebook how those users should be treated. As much as I hate what Facebook is doing, I don't think this is anywhere near the right answer. Besides, do you really think governments want to see less information collected, when having that information makes it so convenient for them to obtain?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > As much as I hate what Facebook is doing, I don't think this is anywhere near the right answer. That's how regulations work. You dictate to a private business its responsibilities to its customers or users. I don't understand why that isn't the right answer (although Europe seems to do far better about this than the US). > Besides, do you really think governments want to see less information collected, when having that information makes it so convenient for them to obtain? This is a tired argument. The government is huge. Not every department is the NSA, nor is every department the FTC or FCC.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > That's how regulations work. You dictate to a private business its responsibilities to its customers or users. I don't understand why that isn't the right answer (although Europe seems to do far better about this than the US). You should, at the very least, already know that this is not a universally held position, but rather one that many people oppose as vigorously as you support it. Without descending into politics, suffice it to say that doing so has no particular guarantee of solving more problems than it creates. Quite apart from the people who work at and run Facebook having rights, too. People use Facebook voluntarily. "Facebook but not evil" is a viable business model.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      People use lots of businesses voluntarily. We still regulate them. That's probably not going away.
- e12e 11y ago
  Well, governments gave us TOR. So just because some parts of government(s) want to listen in, record and have available all the things -- this isn't universal.
unclebucknasty 11y ago
Thank you for the clarification. But, you're still sort of implying that it's an entitlement by suggesting that they be regulated, and that's what I was keying on. Because the choice exists to either accept their terms and use it or reject their terms and not use it. But, what you are saying is that you reject their terms but, rather than disengage, you insist on using it, but believe the government should forcibly change those terms to your satisfaction. BTW, they are actually regulated to some extent. Among other things, they spell out what they will and won't do. If they renege, then there are civil and possibly criminal remedies available.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > Because the choice exists to either accept their terms and use them or reject their terms and not use them. But, what you are saying is that you reject their terms but, rather than disengage, you insist on using it, but believe the government should forcibly change those terms to your satisfaction. How is this any different than unenforceable EULAs or employment contracts that overreach? You can ask me to sign something that violates the law; I can still use your service or become employed by you; that does not remove my protections granted under the law, but nullifies the parts of your contract or agreement that are unlawful.
  - unclebucknasty 11y ago
    But, no one is denying users access to the courts to test the enforceability of FB agreements. On the contrary, I am saying that it is precisely a remedy that is available to them if that is the question. But, in most cases, those who demand regulation or otherwise take umbrage with FB's practices in the current context are not questioning the legality of their terms, etc. Instead, they are asking, for instance, that the government proactively force FB to change practices with which they do not agree, irrespective of any legal tests. The article itself literally speaks to people being endangered by a FB policy. All of this begs the question: at what point is it simply not worth it? It's nearly satire that people believe FB to be so critical that not even personal endangerment will deter them from using it. Using FB is neither a requirement for survival, nor a fundamental human right. If their policies are endangering your life or simply not agreeable, then there's no need to launch a crusade. Just sign out.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

> What I don't get is why Facebook's customers don't just disengage. Convincing all your friends and family to switch sites is not easy. Social networks provide quite a lot of lock-in. And while alternatives exist, they don't have the momentum, the audience, or the lack of friction. Replacing Facebook is not primarily a technical challenge.

unclebucknasty 11y ago
True. But, if the majority of people, including your friends and family, don't care, then is it really Facebook's problem? And, if the relatively few people who do care still continue to engage despite their concerns, then is that an even clearer message to FB that it's not a real problem for FB?
sethammons 11y ago
I don't have a Facebook account. Many of my friends and family apparently do. I manage to text, email, call, or visit from time to time. We have things to catch up on and talk about when we do, in part because we are not voyeurs into one another's life. Could you replace your online social network with more first communication channels? I don't intend to sound hollier than thou. I could be missing something amazing by not being on social networks, but I have not noticed it.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

For the same reason people uncomfortable with phone companies don't ditch their phones - added value + network effect. For Facebook users (of which I am one), this service is an extension of our real-life social circles. We have (most of) our families, friends and colleagues there. Facebook Messenger is probably the primary IM for personal communication these days. You may dislike aspects of it, but there's no denying that Facebook is the best way of keeping the weak ties[0] (and turning them into strong when needed) that exists today. We may bitch about the specifics, but the truth is - it enhances life too much to just leave it. Ditching Facebook is not impossible though. The younger generation seems to be migrating towards Whatsapp and Snapchat. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties

unclebucknasty 11y ago
EDIT: Clarity There are regulations around FB, as well as civil remedies for violations of their terms, privacy policy, etc. They lay out how they will treat users and are beholden to follow it, lest face civil (and possibly criminal) penalties. As a user, you decide whether those terms are sufficient. If the people with whom you communicate can't be convinced to communicate with you otherwise, then why would you have a right to demand that FB accomodate your preferences? That's a sincere question. And, honestly, we have more choices than ever to communicate with people. Personally, I refuse to upload my life to FB for their monetization. But, much as I dislike some of FB's practices (and its fundamental revenue model), I don't see why people believe they should be able to dictate nuances of their various policies as if Facebook owes them the right to use their service on their terms. If people think that that what FB offers is worth the price, then they are getting exactly what they paid for. If they don't think it's worth it, then they should simply move on.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Ensorceled 11y ago

My stepson tried to stay off Facebook. But then he started missing parties, not being part of evening conversations, had difficulties with groups at school, was missing out on his theatre group. If you just ... stop ... you may find your social circle leaving you behind.

travv0 11y ago
I stopped when I was in school and didn't have a problem with any of these things. Maybe he just needs to find closer friends.
unclebucknasty 11y ago
My sibling comment here is being downvoted for saying he needs closer friends. Maybe that's blunt, but if he is unable to maintain friendships without FB, then something is going on there that shouldn't just be accepted as normal. And, if what you're saying is universally true for kids, or even nearly so, then I'd say that we (collectively, as adults) have failed them in strolling hand-in-hand with them into a world wherein personal relationships are not viable without a profiteering third-party intermediary.
- Ensorceled 11y ago
  It's getting downvoted because they jumped from "he was missing out on party invites and facebook conversations" to "he can't maintain friendships and should get new friends". It's a bit extreme of a position.
  - unclebucknasty 11y ago
    Well, I don't think he/she said "he can"t maintain friendships". The suggestion was that he needed closer friends. And, I think it's reasonable to question how close his friendships are if they are dependent on Facebook. But, that's probably true of society in general, wherein we seem to be trading quantity for quality where personal relationships are concerned. And the generation coming up now has almost no reference point as to any other way.

unclebucknasty 11y ago

Correction: FB is obviously no longer a private company. Still, being publicly traded is far different than being a public utility.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

"You can choose to keep in touch with your circle of friends, get invites to their parties, and so forth; or you can choose to remain concealed from your violent ex-boyfriend. Pick one." That's kind of a douchey thing to do to people, even if you're a private company.

unclebucknasty 11y ago
I'm seeing this really late, but FWIW: I'm no FB fan but, here, FB is not "doing" anything to anyone. They offer a service, and a social one at that. If people choose to use it to keep in touch with their entire social circle, then why is FB responsible for ensuring that no one has a violent ex-boyfriend, nosy boss, etc.? If using FB will endanger your health, then don't use it. That's the missing option in your choice set. BTW, this is what happens when people outsource their relationships to a profiteering third-party. No one seems to question the wisdom of that "choice". Instead they want to force FB to be something it never was or claimed to be.

rmc 11y ago

> In fact, Facebook is not a public utility, but a private company. Public utilities have been privatised, and are required to operate under strict regulation. Why not the same for FB>