4 ms·

> Facebook is not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation I didn't say it's not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation, I describe

> Facebook is not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation I didn't say it's not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation, I described its private ownership status to emphasize the fact that Facebook is private property that users don't pay for, not something that anyone is entitled to use. I'll accept that my wording did not communicate that idea clearly. > Even if we assume that there is indeed a correlation and it's Facebook that tends to cause bad mental health, it does not mean that Facebook is bad for the mental health of everyone in every situation. You are correct. My point is to illustrate the commonly accepted understanding within our society that time spent on social media is generally considered unproductive and correlates (not necessarily causes) mental health problems; your reasoning is akin to suggesting that Fortnite is a necessity because its the most popular online game in the world. It's not. > Or do you have higher standards for "need"? If by "need" you mean that it's impossible to live without Facebook: Same for electricity. If you just mean that it doesn't cross your personal threshold of what constitutes "need", then you're of course right, but why should anyone care? Sigh. So you really are going to make me explain why "electricity" is a need but "Facebook" isn't. I'll use the same example I used down thread. If you were to shut down the electrical grid tomorrow, hundreds of thousands would be dead within 24 hours, if you were to shut off Facebook tomorrow, it would be a moderate inconvenience to a lot of people but everyone would survive and most would move on within a month. That's why one is a "need" (electricity) and the other isn't (social media website).

anoncake 7y ago
> I didn't say it's not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation, I described its private ownership status to emphasize the fact that Facebook is private property that users don't pay for, not something that anyone is entitled to use. I'll accept that my wording did not communicate that idea clearly. Okay. But being necessary and being private property are two independent properties. Which is a problem because it means that some people must use something they aren't allowed to use. > If you were to shut down the electrical grid tomorrow, hundreds of thousands would be dead within 24 hours, if you were to shut off Facebook tomorrow, it would be a moderate inconvenience to a lot of people but everyone would survive and most would move on within a month. I basically agree. Society needs the services Facebook provides. But it does not need Facebook because it could trivially shut it down and use a replacement instead. But individuals can't. When they need a communications platform, they need the communications platform other people use. Which is Facebook. I'd love to shut down Facebook, but unfortunately, I can't.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > Okay. But being necessary and being private property are two independent properties. Which is a problem because it means that some people must use something they aren't allowed to use. Well the crux of my argument is that they don't need Facebook, thus it is not a problem. Not having access to Facebook might be very inconvenient, but nobody has a right to convenience. At the end of the day you can't prevent Facebook from regulating the use of its own private property. Facebook users don't pay fees to keep the network running so I can't fathom any sane regulation that could prevent Facebook from arbitrarily limiting user access to their network except where it relates to the user's control of their own personal data. > individuals can't. When they need a communications platform, they need the communications platform other people use. Which is Facebook. Or GSM, or SMS, or Email, or iMessage, or Snapchat, or WhatsApp, or Skype, or Telegram, or KiK, or Hangouts, or Slack, or Discord, or IRC or... you get the point. The idea that Facebook is the only option for communication is very clearly not true.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    > Well the crux of my argument is that they don't need Facebook, thus it is not a problem. 2.3 billion people use Facebook. Many of them say they need Facebook. Many of them use Facebook even though they don't like it -- why would someone do that unless they must? Your claim that no one needs Facebook is not just wrong, it's absurd. > Not having access to Facebook might be very inconvenient, but nobody has a right to convenience. At the end of the day you can't prevent Facebook from regulating the use of its own private property. Something doesn't have to be a right to be desirable. And nobody has a right to private property. > Facebook users don't pay fees to keep the network running so I can't fathom any sane regulation that could prevent Facebook from arbitrarily limiting user access to their network except where it relates to the user's control of their own personal data. I can't fathom any regulation more insane than letting His Autocratic Majesty Mark "Dumb Fucks" I. of Zuckerberg do whatever he wants with his kingdom. > The idea that Facebook is the only option for communication is very clearly not true. Sometimes it is and you don't have a choice. Thus whether Facebook is a monopoly is merely a semantic question: The issue with monopolies is that individuals cannot chose. The issue with Facebook is the same, so it should be treated the same.

anoncake 7y ago

> I didn't say it's not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation, I described its private ownership status to emphasize the fact that Facebook is private property that users don't pay for, not something that anyone is entitled to use. I'll accept that my wording did not communicate that idea clearly. Okay. But being necessary and being private property are two independent properties. Which is a problem because it means that some people must use something they aren't allowed to use. > If you were to shut down the electrical grid tomorrow, hundreds of thousands would be dead within 24 hours, if you were to shut off Facebook tomorrow, it would be a moderate inconvenience to a lot of people but everyone would survive and most would move on within a month. I basically agree. Society needs the services Facebook provides. But it does not need Facebook because it could trivially shut it down and use a replacement instead. But individuals can't. When they need a communications platform, they need the communications platform other people use. Which is Facebook. I'd love to shut down Facebook, but unfortunately, I can't.

root_axis 7y ago
> Okay. But being necessary and being private property are two independent properties. Which is a problem because it means that some people must use something they aren't allowed to use. Well the crux of my argument is that they don't need Facebook, thus it is not a problem. Not having access to Facebook might be very inconvenient, but nobody has a right to convenience. At the end of the day you can't prevent Facebook from regulating the use of its own private property. Facebook users don't pay fees to keep the network running so I can't fathom any sane regulation that could prevent Facebook from arbitrarily limiting user access to their network except where it relates to the user's control of their own personal data. > individuals can't. When they need a communications platform, they need the communications platform other people use. Which is Facebook. Or GSM, or SMS, or Email, or iMessage, or Snapchat, or WhatsApp, or Skype, or Telegram, or KiK, or Hangouts, or Slack, or Discord, or IRC or... you get the point. The idea that Facebook is the only option for communication is very clearly not true.
- anoncake 7y ago
  > Well the crux of my argument is that they don't need Facebook, thus it is not a problem. 2.3 billion people use Facebook. Many of them say they need Facebook. Many of them use Facebook even though they don't like it -- why would someone do that unless they must? Your claim that no one needs Facebook is not just wrong, it's absurd. > Not having access to Facebook might be very inconvenient, but nobody has a right to convenience. At the end of the day you can't prevent Facebook from regulating the use of its own private property. Something doesn't have to be a right to be desirable. And nobody has a right to private property. > Facebook users don't pay fees to keep the network running so I can't fathom any sane regulation that could prevent Facebook from arbitrarily limiting user access to their network except where it relates to the user's control of their own personal data. I can't fathom any regulation more insane than letting His Autocratic Majesty Mark "Dumb Fucks" I. of Zuckerberg do whatever he wants with his kingdom. > The idea that Facebook is the only option for communication is very clearly not true. Sometimes it is and you don't have a choice. Thus whether Facebook is a monopoly is merely a semantic question: The issue with monopolies is that individuals cannot chose. The issue with Facebook is the same, so it should be treated the same.