3 ms·

That's the problem, Facebook and other virtual monopolies don't care because they don't have to. > You are in debt to them for such a great service, they never

That's the problem, Facebook and other virtual monopolies don't care because they don't have to. > You are in debt to them for such a great service, they never forced you to become so dependent. No. I'm not in debt to them. My ad views and clicks cancel the debt for the provided service. And my patronage further adds to push that balance in my favor. In a way, you can say that Facebook and Google are in my debt. > "It's not fair! Facebook has a responsibility to its users! I demand them to do such and such!" There is a difference between a startup, a small-to-medium size business, and a monopoly. Once you become a monopoly the rules change, since by definition you are the only option there is. Understand that we are not dealing with a business that cornered some niche. That's not a monopoly. What we are dealing with are businesses that are involved with billions of lives. They do have a responsibility, yet they accept none. It's a clear case of indifference, lack of understanding, and perhaps ego at the top of these orgs.

fleitz 16y ago
It would be difficult to prove that Facebook has a monopoly on social media, there are many alternatives. The way Facebook handles these things is exactly the way their users want them to handle it. Facebook provides a part of the internet that is 'safe'. Facebook and Zuckerberg's responsibilities are to their shareholders. As far as I can tell they've been taking that responsibility pretty seriously. Furthermore, Facebook is not a monopoly in any meaningful sense of the word, they definitely don't have more than 50% of the ad revenue on the internet. As a person who consumes Facebook's services for free you really have no leg to stand on as to what Facebook is legally obligated to provide you for free. How can you argue that kicking people off Facebook is a monopolistic practice that unfairly prejudices it's competitors? It would seem to me that the more widespread this practice becomes at Facebook the better it's competitors would do.
- powertower 16y ago
  > It would be difficult to prove that Facebook has a monopoly on social media, there are many alternatives. There are also many alternatives to Google. Except to the webmasters, since Google brings in 95-98% of a website's traffic. > they definitely don't have more than 50% of the ad revenue on the internet I don't see why you're injecting ad revenue into this. > As a person who consumes Facebook's services for free you really have no leg to stand on as to what Facebook is legally obligated to provide you for free. I have stated nothing of the sort. > How can you argue that kicking people off Facebook is a monopolistic practice I have not stated nor argued anything of the sort. What I have stated is that after you get to a certain size and market share (monopoly) where you begin to effect the lives and welfare of people, society, and businesses, "public good" rules begin to apply to you (or should be applied to you). No one is asking for free services. What we are asking for is fare treatment and fare processes.

fleitz 16y ago

It would be difficult to prove that Facebook has a monopoly on social media, there are many alternatives. The way Facebook handles these things is exactly the way their users want them to handle it. Facebook provides a part of the internet that is 'safe'. Facebook and Zuckerberg's responsibilities are to their shareholders. As far as I can tell they've been taking that responsibility pretty seriously. Furthermore, Facebook is not a monopoly in any meaningful sense of the word, they definitely don't have more than 50% of the ad revenue on the internet. As a person who consumes Facebook's services for free you really have no leg to stand on as to what Facebook is legally obligated to provide you for free. How can you argue that kicking people off Facebook is a monopolistic practice that unfairly prejudices it's competitors? It would seem to me that the more widespread this practice becomes at Facebook the better it's competitors would do.

powertower 16y ago
> It would be difficult to prove that Facebook has a monopoly on social media, there are many alternatives. There are also many alternatives to Google. Except to the webmasters, since Google brings in 95-98% of a website's traffic. > they definitely don't have more than 50% of the ad revenue on the internet I don't see why you're injecting ad revenue into this. > As a person who consumes Facebook's services for free you really have no leg to stand on as to what Facebook is legally obligated to provide you for free. I have stated nothing of the sort. > How can you argue that kicking people off Facebook is a monopolistic practice I have not stated nor argued anything of the sort. What I have stated is that after you get to a certain size and market share (monopoly) where you begin to effect the lives and welfare of people, society, and businesses, "public good" rules begin to apply to you (or should be applied to you). No one is asking for free services. What we are asking for is fare treatment and fare processes.