3 ms·

Outlawed?! Facebook is not an essential service; it is not a monopoly; and access to it is not a human right. By freedom of association, Facebook ought to be

Outlawed?! Facebook is not an essential service; it is not a monopoly; and access to it is not a human right. By freedom of association, Facebook ought to be able to drop users arbitrarily as they see fit.

vixen99 6y ago
You are correct but there's an interesting question here with ramifications worth thinking through. Would we stick to this view if 90% of the world's population used it instead of the current 34%? Is there any % at which we might question your three statements? And if selected, why that figure? Seems odd that one person, a single smart lucky entrepreneur, would continue to be the moral arbiter for postings by its users irrespective of any view taken by democratically-elected governments anywhere. Of course one trusts that soon, alternatives will arise and allow those who want to, to jump ship.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  Alternatives have been around for decades: https://friendi.ca/ https://friendi.ca/ People can't jump ship because of network effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect That's why you see mass exoduses, like what happened with WhatsApp; there's no interoperability between Facebook and the rest of the social media space, so you lose contact with nearly every Facebook user when you leave Facebook. You can put up with a lot when it's the only way to talk to your family.
ssivark 6y ago
By the same standard of freedom of association, users should have a say over whether Facebook collects any data about them I.e. no shadow profiles, and ability to sever one’s relationship with Facebook and purge all data.
tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
> Facebook is not an essential service; it is not a monopoly Depending on your social circles, it de facto is, and refusing to use it or being refused from it will result in being excluded from real-life social events.

vixen99 6y ago

You are correct but there's an interesting question here with ramifications worth thinking through. Would we stick to this view if 90% of the world's population used it instead of the current 34%? Is there any % at which we might question your three statements? And if selected, why that figure? Seems odd that one person, a single smart lucky entrepreneur, would continue to be the moral arbiter for postings by its users irrespective of any view taken by democratically-elected governments anywhere. Of course one trusts that soon, alternatives will arise and allow those who want to, to jump ship.

wizzwizz4 6y ago
Alternatives have been around for decades: https://friendi.ca/ https://friendi.ca/ People can't jump ship because of network effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect That's why you see mass exoduses, like what happened with WhatsApp; there's no interoperability between Facebook and the rest of the social media space, so you lose contact with nearly every Facebook user when you leave Facebook. You can put up with a lot when it's the only way to talk to your family.

ssivark 6y ago

By the same standard of freedom of association, users should have a say over whether Facebook collects any data about them I.e. no shadow profiles, and ability to sever one’s relationship with Facebook and purge all data.

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago

> Facebook is not an essential service; it is not a monopoly Depending on your social circles, it de facto is, and refusing to use it or being refused from it will result in being excluded from real-life social events.