> I don't see that explanation anywhere If you don't see an explanation anywhere, it's because you don't want to see it. I have written like half a dozen. > T

> I don't see that explanation anywhere If you don't see an explanation anywhere, it's because you don't want to see it. I have written like half a dozen. > That's a nice platitude but not an explanation for why someone saying they need something means that they actually need it. Ditto > It's not a factor because convenience is not something you are owed. Non sequitur > 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. That's two contradictory definitions, survival and well-being is not the same. Even under this definition, you still haven't provided the extraordinary proof necessary for the extraordinary claim that nobody needs Facebook. You've merely asserted it – somehow believing that your assertions about the lifes of people you don't know are more accurate than what these people believe. > 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? Facebook does not have any rights to begin with. Like all companies, its only legitimate purpose is to serve the public – which is why the convenience of the many trumps the desire of one Mr. Zuckerberg to control Facebook.