>the transaction does not cost these folks anything they value. Absolutely and you can say that about literally everyone who gets caught by a confidence tricks

>the transaction does not cost these folks anything they value. Absolutely and you can say that about literally everyone who gets caught by a confidence trickster and some do. It really hasn't worked out for too many indigenous cultures where that was used as the precise justfication, for example. Usuary is another one you can defend that way and people do. It's not so commonly held anymore by those not profiting from it. When there is a tradeoff between what is good fo soceity at large being the people who live in it and what is good for for a big company's market dominance the latter is meant to come absolutely last and be tolerated if it doesn't infringe anything much else of value to the people. I can't see that as being the case here. No doubt Zuckerberg disagrees because he's convinced anything good for him and his company is pefection for society by the definition that he wants to do it. Nobody understands what they are paying. Nobody understands their liability. Google et al all desperately hide it and have done a bait and switch to make it happen. There is _NO_ informed consent to the contract and the contract is invalid.