4 ms·

> This is because I legitimately use facebook for communication more often than I use phones. Therefore, being banned from facebook would have a larger impact o

> This is because I legitimately use facebook for communication more often than I use phones. Therefore, being banned from facebook would have a larger impact on my life than being banned from ever making a phone call again.. If you use Facebook as your primary communication platform I can see how getting banned from Facebook would be very inconvenient, unfortunately, the fact that you would rely on Facebook in such a manner doesn't change the reality that Facebook is just one website, while a phone network is fundamental infrastructure that underpins internet connectivity. For the vast majority of Facebook users losing access to the phone network would mean losing access to not just Facebook, but everything on the internet. You might have grown accustomed to thinking of Facebook as something more than just a website, but that conception is simply wrong, the idea that Facebook is comparable to the network that Facebook runs on is categorically incorrect.

stale2002 6y ago
> e fact that you would rely on Facebook in such a manner It is the reality of the situation that a whole lot of people rely on facebook in such a manner, and because of the network effect they would be unable to convince all of their friends and family to switch to other platforms. One person cannot defeat platform locking and network effects. > while a phone network is fundamental infrastructure Not really. It would be easier for me to never call someone's phone number again, than to get rid of other communication platforms that I use.
- root_axis 6y ago
  > It is the reality of the situation that a whole lot of people rely on facebook You're just wrong. The overwhelming majority of people use a variety of communication services like e-mail, imessage/sms and many others, and this is common knowledge, people who only use Facebook for communication are frankly extremely rare.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > people who only I am saying that they rely on it more for communication than they do on phone calls. I communicate with people much more over Facebook than I do through actual phone calls, and it would be less of a problem to be banned from ever making phone calls again than it would be to be banned from facebook.
    - root_axis 6y ago
      > I am saying that they rely on it more for communication than they do on phone calls. Nobody is talking about phone calls and you know it. It doesn't matter that you use Facebook more than anything else, it doesn't change what Facebook actually is. If you use discord or slack to do most of your communicating that doesn't mean they become utilities, that's just your personal preference.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > Nobody is talking about phone calls Literally I was the one to bring up this example in the very beginning. It was my example, that I chose at the start. So yes, that is relevant. The fact of the matter is, that me being banned from ever making phone calls again would absolutely be a larger problem for me, and many other people, than if we were banned from using facebook. > It doesn't matter that you use Facebook more than anything else Of course it does. It is a point of comparison, so as to show that it would be a bigger problem to be banned from facebook than it would be to be banned from making phone calls. > that's just your personal preference. I can assure you that there are many people for whom it would be a bigger problem to be banned from facebook than to be banned from making phone calls.
        root_axis 6y ago
        > It was my example, that I chose at the start. So yes, that is relevant. It's not relevant because you're ignoring the fact that "the phone network" doesn't primarily mean "phone calls" it primarily means "internet access". > The fact of the matter is, that me being banned from ever making phone calls again would absolutely be a larger problem for me Yes, you keep repeating that over and over again (3 times in this response) but what you don't seem to understand is that nobody is forcing you to rely exclusively on a single website for all your communications, that is a self-imposed restriction that isn't meaningful when trying to decide if a website meets the definition of a utility.

stale2002 6y ago

> e fact that you would rely on Facebook in such a manner It is the reality of the situation that a whole lot of people rely on facebook in such a manner, and because of the network effect they would be unable to convince all of their friends and family to switch to other platforms. One person cannot defeat platform locking and network effects. > while a phone network is fundamental infrastructure Not really. It would be easier for me to never call someone's phone number again, than to get rid of other communication platforms that I use.

root_axis 6y ago
> It is the reality of the situation that a whole lot of people rely on facebook You're just wrong. The overwhelming majority of people use a variety of communication services like e-mail, imessage/sms and many others, and this is common knowledge, people who only use Facebook for communication are frankly extremely rare.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > people who only I am saying that they rely on it more for communication than they do on phone calls. I communicate with people much more over Facebook than I do through actual phone calls, and it would be less of a problem to be banned from ever making phone calls again than it would be to be banned from facebook.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > I am saying that they rely on it more for communication than they do on phone calls. Nobody is talking about phone calls and you know it. It doesn't matter that you use Facebook more than anything else, it doesn't change what Facebook actually is. If you use discord or slack to do most of your communicating that doesn't mean they become utilities, that's just your personal preference.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > Nobody is talking about phone calls Literally I was the one to bring up this example in the very beginning. It was my example, that I chose at the start. So yes, that is relevant. The fact of the matter is, that me being banned from ever making phone calls again would absolutely be a larger problem for me, and many other people, than if we were banned from using facebook. > It doesn't matter that you use Facebook more than anything else Of course it does. It is a point of comparison, so as to show that it would be a bigger problem to be banned from facebook than it would be to be banned from making phone calls. > that's just your personal preference. I can assure you that there are many people for whom it would be a bigger problem to be banned from facebook than to be banned from making phone calls.
      - root_axis 6y ago
        > It was my example, that I chose at the start. So yes, that is relevant. It's not relevant because you're ignoring the fact that "the phone network" doesn't primarily mean "phone calls" it primarily means "internet access". > The fact of the matter is, that me being banned from ever making phone calls again would absolutely be a larger problem for me Yes, you keep repeating that over and over again (3 times in this response) but what you don't seem to understand is that nobody is forcing you to rely exclusively on a single website for all your communications, that is a self-imposed restriction that isn't meaningful when trying to decide if a website meets the definition of a utility.