2 ms·
That's completely wrong. There is not, and has never been, an inalienable right to use somebody else's property (aka Facebook's network) to communicate. You a
by jlarocco 10y ago
That's completely wrong.
There is not, and has never been, an inalienable right to use somebody else's property (aka Facebook's network) to communicate. You are not entitled to coerce Facebook into building their product to work the way you want. On the contrary, it's Facebook's right, as the owner and creator of their platform and network, to handle all of the network traffic that you are voluntarily sending them however they want.
There are more communication methods available today than ever before. If a person you are trying to contact has stubbornly refused to use all of them except Facebook, that is not Facebook's problem, and it doesn't make them obligated to you in any way whatsoever.
If you don't like it then send an email, send a text message, call them, write them a letter, visit them, hire a courier, fax them, use another social network, etc.
- treebeard901 10y agoOpining on the fact that FB messenger has replaced traditional forms of communication is not the same as an endorsement for an inalienable right to privacy everywhere. It's far too complicated of a topic to be boiled down to a talking point. It isn't even the core issue here. The problem is that FB knew this was wrong, so they hid it and hoped no one would notice. > "If you don't like it then use X or Y" If you are not aware that a service you're using is spying on you how are you supposed to know you don't like it in the first place? The cynical answer is that you can just expect them all to spy on you by default. Well if that's the case then we are getting back to the debate about privacy being an inalienable right.
- mnw21cam 10y agoBy your argument, it is the right of Fedex/UPS/whatever to handle all of the parcels that you voluntarily hand over to them in whatever manner they want.