>Why are you saying "Facebook must go" rather than "people must stop using Facebook"? I say that like I would say "shady credit pushers must go", although I al

>Why are you saying "Facebook must go" rather than "people must stop using Facebook"? I say that like I would say "shady credit pushers must go", although I also think people shouldn't resort to such services. Facebook provides a service free of charge but the contract isn't clear: there are consequences that must remain obscure in order to the whole thing work. I believe it's pretty clear that Facebook depends on people inadvertently permitting systemic surveillance. > Facebook is a private company that people freely choose to interact with. Like many other companies that are, unlike Facebook, heavily regulated in their primary activity. >People who care about the extensive personal data harvesting are free to stop using Facebook. But Facebook has been collecting data of people outside of Facebook as well. In any case, people have elected representatives to protect them from harm in the meanders of technology concepts they cannot grasp. > there is no shortage of people summarizing the salient details for them That is hardly a substitute for regulation. Take the example of the agrobusiness: no one expects lay people to ponder the cost-benefit of many drugs and antibiotics present in food they "freely" choose to eat. > I think you should be more afraid of government control of private interactions. I'm not sure about that. Currently I am equally afraid of both. >In the US and Europe it's already far too intrusive. I agree. Unfortunately, Europe is becoming nothing more but a meta-corporation. Lobbying being legal in Brussels, common people have no way of matching corporate influence.