5 ms·

They have the right to not do business with Facebook. This is massively more power than a citizen has over it's government. If I had the right to not pay my t

They have the right to not do business with Facebook. This is massively more power than a citizen has over it's government. If I had the right to not pay my taxes if I was unsatisfied with government services (not actually saying this is reasonable) then the government would be a lot more responsive to my needs.

jdauriemma 6y ago
There are few analogies that are unassailably perfect, but I stand by mine. Ideally, if I leave the USA and renounce my citizenship, I am no longer subject to its jurisdiction. Likewise, when I left Facebook, I should no longer have been subject to its jurisdiction. But you and I both know that neither of these statements are true. The USA has a vast surveillance network that spans the globe. Its government has a disproportionate impact on the internal politics of other nation-states. Likewise, Facebook's dominance over social networking and the internet itself means that it influences everyone, not just its own users. Facebook is run as a dictatorship from the board room down to the users. Sure, we can leave - and people have been leaving nation-state dictatorships since antiquity. But, like a powerful nation-state, just because you can stop being a Facebook user doesn't mean you escape Facebook's reach, and just because I _can_ (and did) leave Facebook doesn't mean that Facebook will somehow be responsive to the needs of its users.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > just because I _can_ (and did) leave Facebook doesn't mean that Facebook will somehow be responsive to the needs of its users. I think this statement assumes that the majority of end users are similar to you. Perhaps you're (unfortunately) in the minority.
  - jdauriemma 6y ago
    That’s not material to whether Facebook has a lord/vassal relationship with the users. Benevolent monarchs and/or docile subjects do not change the facts about an organization‘s structure.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      My point is that it is material to whether Facebook has a lord/vassal relationship with the users. If the majority of users was like you, Facebook's behavior would have to change. The unfortunate reality is that the majority of users is NOT like you. Ask yourself: if Facebook, acting in its capacity as a supposed "monarch", began charging $50 for its product, do you think users would silently just accept that and pay up? They are vassals after all, right?
      - jdauriemma 6y ago
        I think history has shown that monarchies are hardly aloof of their people for long. There are certainly limits to how far the king can go, but that doesn’t change the fact that he is a king.
        bhupy 6y ago
        But this isn't unique to monarchies, this can be true of even the most democratic societies. With enough apathy among the people, the leaders can get away with anything. The fundamental problem appears to be that the users (constituents) either don't share the same values as you do, or they do and are simply apathetic. That Facebook appears to be impervious to its users can just as easily be explained by general apathy of your average user, rather than a lord/vassal relationship.
        jdauriemma 6y ago
        No, this is about the facts of the organizational structure, not about shared values or passive consent. Users are not Facebook's constituents, they are its subjects. They have two choices: submit to Facebook's board of directors, or leave. The authority of the board room over the users is nominally absolute. There's no representative body that is accountable to the users, there's no ownership or stake in their own data or in the assets of Facebook itself.
        bhupy 6y ago

jdauriemma 6y ago

There are few analogies that are unassailably perfect, but I stand by mine. Ideally, if I leave the USA and renounce my citizenship, I am no longer subject to its jurisdiction. Likewise, when I left Facebook, I should no longer have been subject to its jurisdiction. But you and I both know that neither of these statements are true. The USA has a vast surveillance network that spans the globe. Its government has a disproportionate impact on the internal politics of other nation-states. Likewise, Facebook's dominance over social networking and the internet itself means that it influences everyone, not just its own users. Facebook is run as a dictatorship from the board room down to the users. Sure, we can leave - and people have been leaving nation-state dictatorships since antiquity. But, like a powerful nation-state, just because you can stop being a Facebook user doesn't mean you escape Facebook's reach, and just because I _can_ (and did) leave Facebook doesn't mean that Facebook will somehow be responsive to the needs of its users.

bhupy 6y ago
> just because I _can_ (and did) leave Facebook doesn't mean that Facebook will somehow be responsive to the needs of its users. I think this statement assumes that the majority of end users are similar to you. Perhaps you're (unfortunately) in the minority.
- jdauriemma 6y ago
  That’s not material to whether Facebook has a lord/vassal relationship with the users. Benevolent monarchs and/or docile subjects do not change the facts about an organization‘s structure.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    My point is that it is material to whether Facebook has a lord/vassal relationship with the users. If the majority of users was like you, Facebook's behavior would have to change. The unfortunate reality is that the majority of users is NOT like you. Ask yourself: if Facebook, acting in its capacity as a supposed "monarch", began charging $50 for its product, do you think users would silently just accept that and pay up? They are vassals after all, right?
    - jdauriemma 6y ago
      I think history has shown that monarchies are hardly aloof of their people for long. There are certainly limits to how far the king can go, but that doesn’t change the fact that he is a king.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        But this isn't unique to monarchies, this can be true of even the most democratic societies. With enough apathy among the people, the leaders can get away with anything. The fundamental problem appears to be that the users (constituents) either don't share the same values as you do, or they do and are simply apathetic. That Facebook appears to be impervious to its users can just as easily be explained by general apathy of your average user, rather than a lord/vassal relationship.
        jdauriemma 6y ago
        No, this is about the facts of the organizational structure, not about shared values or passive consent. Users are not Facebook's constituents, they are its subjects. They have two choices: submit to Facebook's board of directors, or leave. The authority of the board room over the users is nominally absolute. There's no representative body that is accountable to the users, there's no ownership or stake in their own data or in the assets of Facebook itself.
        bhupy 6y ago