4 ms·

Does anyone require a Google account to live, no; it's a luxury item. Unless and until not having a google account prevents you from living in this society, i.

Does anyone require a Google account to live, no; it's a luxury item. Unless and until not having a google account prevents you from living in this society, i.e. unless it becomes a basic utility which without you cannot function in society, then I don't believe you have any right to regulate Google. It matters when something is a monopoly when its service becomes no longer a luxury but a necessary element of life in society. If I can't get utilities to my house because they rely on a Google account for authentication, then you can regulate Google.

mercer 9y ago
That still doesn't really satisfy me. What divides 'living' from 'luxury item', at least in the context of places like Western Europe? Or is that already a point of contention? To make things even more extreme: assuming that practically speaking all internet users get 100% of their content via FB (whether FB proper or WhatsApp), and perhaps Google, and assuming that FB and Google were free to do as they please, in that extreme case would you still argue that because technically a person could enter a non-FB or non-Google URL, buth FB and Google should not be regulated in any way? Again, I'm honestly asking because I respect your views. I do realize that as far as making any kind of case this a reduction ad absurdum. I would just like to hear more elaboration to bridge the gap between your point of view and that of others here (many, based on the downvotes you're getting)
- gnaritas 9y ago
  Yes I would, again, not having a Google account does not threaten your ability to survive and you do not have a right to someone else's services and labor except under extreme special circumstances. As long as you can setup a blog and self host, you will never have a right to Google's services in my opinion. No one company will ever own all possible channels of broadcast, and your right to free speech means only you cannot be jailed or punished by the government for your views; it does not grant you a right to be serviced by broadcast medium possible. You do not, and should not ever, have a right to a Google account.

mercer 9y ago

That still doesn't really satisfy me. What divides 'living' from 'luxury item', at least in the context of places like Western Europe? Or is that already a point of contention? To make things even more extreme: assuming that practically speaking all internet users get 100% of their content via FB (whether FB proper or WhatsApp), and perhaps Google, and assuming that FB and Google were free to do as they please, in that extreme case would you still argue that because technically a person could enter a non-FB or non-Google URL, buth FB and Google should not be regulated in any way? Again, I'm honestly asking because I respect your views. I do realize that as far as making any kind of case this a reduction ad absurdum. I would just like to hear more elaboration to bridge the gap between your point of view and that of others here (many, based on the downvotes you're getting)

gnaritas 9y ago
Yes I would, again, not having a Google account does not threaten your ability to survive and you do not have a right to someone else's services and labor except under extreme special circumstances. As long as you can setup a blog and self host, you will never have a right to Google's services in my opinion. No one company will ever own all possible channels of broadcast, and your right to free speech means only you cannot be jailed or punished by the government for your views; it does not grant you a right to be serviced by broadcast medium possible. You do not, and should not ever, have a right to a Google account.