2 ms·

> 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

> 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.

root_axis 7y ago
> 2.3 billion people use Facebook A big scary number, but you haven't demonstrated the logical connection between "very popular" and "necessity". > Many of them say they need Facebook So what? > Many of them use Facebook even though they don't like it -- why would someone do that unless they must This argument doesn't make sense. There are many things in life that one does not need to do, and one does not want to do, but one does anyway because it serves some other purpose. I don't need to wash the dishes, I don't want to wash the dishes, but I still do it because I prefer not to generate a trash-pile of disposable plates and utensil with every meal. > Something doesn't have to be a right to be desirable What's your point? Convenience is obviously desirable but it's not something society owes you. > And nobody has a right to private property. We can agree to disagree on the value of property rights but it's a legally recognized right even if you don't personally recognize it. > letting His Autocratic Majesty Mark "Dumb Fucks" I. of Zuckerberg do whatever he wants. I am just going to ignore this obvious strawman argument. > The issue with monopolies is that individuals cannot chose. But they can choose. There are hundreds of choices. The argument that not all social networks contain all people does not demonstrate that Facebook is a monopoly. If you have a hypothetical acquaintance who doesn't have a phone or an email and only uses Facebook to communicate that is their prerogative and has absolutely nothing to do with Facebook. That scenario would be identical on literally any platform regardless of how many total users are on the platform.
- anoncake 7y ago
  > > 2.3 billion people use Facebook > A big scary number, but you haven't demonstrated the logical connection between "very popular" and "necessity". Which is why I didn't stop writing after those 5 words. > So what? Have you ever considered that other people may know more about their own lives than you do? > What's your point? Convenience is obviously desirable but it's not something society owes you. It's a factor when considering what to do with Facebook. > I don't want to wash the dishes, but I still do it because I prefer not to generate a trash-pile of disposable plates and utensil with every meal. That means you need to wash the dishes. If we restrict "need" to things where you have no choice, all you need to do is breathe. I don't want to eat, but I still do it because I prefer not to starve. > it's a legally recognized right True, but not an argument. > The argument that not all social networks contain all people does not demonstrate that Facebook is a monopoly. Which is, as I wrote, irrelevant.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > Which is why I didn't stop writing after those 5 words. I don't see that explanation anywhere. Something being popular does not mean you need it; that should be pretty obvious. If you need something then it is necessary regardless of how popular it is. > Have you ever considered that other people may know more about their own lives than you do? That's a nice platitude but not an explanation for why someone saying they need something means that they actually need it. A pothead might claim to need weed but that doesn't mean society should have an obligation to accommodate him based on the justification that "people may know more about their own lives than you do" > It's a factor when considering what to do with Facebook. It's not a factor because convenience is not something you are owed. > That means you need to wash the dishes. If we restrict "need" to things where you have no choice, all you need to do is breathe. I don't want to eat, but I still do it because I prefer not to starve. Damn that is some disingenuous semantic foolishness. I don't need to do the dishes because I could buy a box of paper plates instead which is a decision that will not at all impact my health or livelihood. I need to eat because the needs that underpin survival are the default assumptions made by an intellectually honest individual when the term "need" is used. When I say need I mean a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism. > True, but not an argument. So what are you saying? An individual's right to access Facebook is more fundamental than Facebook's right to operate their computers in a manner that is consistent with their prerogatives?

root_axis 7y ago

> 2.3 billion people use Facebook A big scary number, but you haven't demonstrated the logical connection between "very popular" and "necessity". > Many of them say they need Facebook So what? > Many of them use Facebook even though they don't like it -- why would someone do that unless they must This argument doesn't make sense. There are many things in life that one does not need to do, and one does not want to do, but one does anyway because it serves some other purpose. I don't need to wash the dishes, I don't want to wash the dishes, but I still do it because I prefer not to generate a trash-pile of disposable plates and utensil with every meal. > Something doesn't have to be a right to be desirable What's your point? Convenience is obviously desirable but it's not something society owes you. > And nobody has a right to private property. We can agree to disagree on the value of property rights but it's a legally recognized right even if you don't personally recognize it. > letting His Autocratic Majesty Mark "Dumb Fucks" I. of Zuckerberg do whatever he wants. I am just going to ignore this obvious strawman argument. > The issue with monopolies is that individuals cannot chose. But they can choose. There are hundreds of choices. The argument that not all social networks contain all people does not demonstrate that Facebook is a monopoly. If you have a hypothetical acquaintance who doesn't have a phone or an email and only uses Facebook to communicate that is their prerogative and has absolutely nothing to do with Facebook. That scenario would be identical on literally any platform regardless of how many total users are on the platform.

anoncake 7y ago
> > 2.3 billion people use Facebook > A big scary number, but you haven't demonstrated the logical connection between "very popular" and "necessity". Which is why I didn't stop writing after those 5 words. > So what? Have you ever considered that other people may know more about their own lives than you do? > What's your point? Convenience is obviously desirable but it's not something society owes you. It's a factor when considering what to do with Facebook. > I don't want to wash the dishes, but I still do it because I prefer not to generate a trash-pile of disposable plates and utensil with every meal. That means you need to wash the dishes. If we restrict "need" to things where you have no choice, all you need to do is breathe. I don't want to eat, but I still do it because I prefer not to starve. > it's a legally recognized right True, but not an argument. > The argument that not all social networks contain all people does not demonstrate that Facebook is a monopoly. Which is, as I wrote, irrelevant.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > Which is why I didn't stop writing after those 5 words. I don't see that explanation anywhere. Something being popular does not mean you need it; that should be pretty obvious. If you need something then it is necessary regardless of how popular it is. > Have you ever considered that other people may know more about their own lives than you do? That's a nice platitude but not an explanation for why someone saying they need something means that they actually need it. A pothead might claim to need weed but that doesn't mean society should have an obligation to accommodate him based on the justification that "people may know more about their own lives than you do" > It's a factor when considering what to do with Facebook. It's not a factor because convenience is not something you are owed. > That means you need to wash the dishes. If we restrict "need" to things where you have no choice, all you need to do is breathe. I don't want to eat, but I still do it because I prefer not to starve. Damn that is some disingenuous semantic foolishness. I don't need to do the dishes because I could buy a box of paper plates instead which is a decision that will not at all impact my health or livelihood. I need to eat because the needs that underpin survival are the default assumptions made by an intellectually honest individual when the term "need" is used. When I say need I mean a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism. > True, but not an argument. So what are you saying? An individual's right to access Facebook is more fundamental than Facebook's right to operate their computers in a manner that is consistent with their prerogatives?