4 ms·
Yes they do have that right, if the company has no substitute, and if doing without it is a substantial impact on life. For example, the power company. The tel
by jlawson 5y ago
Yes they do have that right, if the company has no substitute, and if doing without it is a substantial impact on life.
For example, the power company. The telephone company. A sole ISP with no local alternatives. A company that owns an important toll road near your house. Monopolistic social media companies. Etc.
- Karunamon 5y agoThey don't have that right now. There is no legal framework yet for demanding a social media company provide you an account. Many of us would like to see that changed.
- fredsmith42 5y agoIf you own a Quest VR headset and have purchased games, a ban means you cannot play or download them. I would hope that would be reasonable grounds for a suit in small claims court. If they make membership in the social network a requirement of using a product you purchased, that comes with responsibilities on their end too.
- Karunamon 5y agoThat'll be irrelevant soon, thankfully. https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/oculus-quest-2-headsets-wont-need-facebook-logins-in-the-future-3082780 https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/oculus-quest-2-headsets...
- vinaypai 5y agoIMO, you really need to reexamine your life choices if your consider Facebook an essential service on par with electricity. Frankly, it provides negative value and my life has been vastly improved since I logged off and blocked their cookies a couple of years ago.
- JohnHaugeland 5y agoThe courts in four countries have already made this requirement. Just because it isn't necessary for you does not mean that it's not necessary for someone else. People don't need to "examine their life choices" just because you disagree with their needs.