> If the counter-arguments are reasonable, then Facebook _should_ be attacked. Yes. But this will probably end in a lot of arguing, which is good for spammers,

> If the counter-arguments are reasonable, then Facebook _should_ be attacked. Yes. But this will probably end in a lot of arguing, which is good for spammers, offenders and innocent alike, but bad for Facebook in practically all cases - so seen from their side, it is all downsides, especially when the innocent make up a small proportion. Don't get me wrong - I don't think the result is good, but I can understand FB acting the way it does. > I think the implicit implication is that Facebook should _not_ legally be allowed to ban you only if it wants. [...] I'd agree to that, but I think we need to treat carefully to not create something wrong here. Forcing FB to allow you to have an account might lead to required identity documents across the industry, for example, which would hurt privacy even more. OTOH, FB should not be able to simply "void" your hardware. Steam and the Nintendo Switch, for example, only ban you from multiplayer and social functions, but you can access anything you bought still (I think). That would be a reasonable solution for the Oculus as well. Generally, removing the need for an account from hardware by legislation, unless proven to be required, seems good. Still, this would not help the guy in this article and I actually don't think we should force Facebook to allow anyone to ping random people or justify retracting free services. He should not have relied on Facebook as backup or sole point of contact. Yes, FBs conduct looks bad[0], but if he would've been realistic about the problems of a free services, the ban would be more of an inconvenience. [0] I don't want to take sides here without knowing the details of the story.