5 ms·

That’s a pretty hot take, can you elaborate? I’m not sure I understand.

josephcsible 4y ago
Your argument is basically "what Meta did is okay since you agreed to it in the terms of service that you accepted", right? I'm saying that like selling yourself into indentured servitude, accepting Meta's TOS is not always a completely free choice.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  If you don't like Meta's terms, don't use Meta products and services. It's that simple. There's no indentured servitude because you're not giving Meta free work. In this case, people don't want to pay for Meta services by viewing ads. If you don't want to pay, don't use the service.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > don't use Meta products and services. It's that simple. Doesn't that basically completely cut you off from electronic communication with everyone else in most European countries, where WhatsApp has basically completely replaced SMS?
    - chaostheory 4y ago
      SMS didn’t disappear. You just have to pay for it with money. WhatsApp also isn’t the only IM on the market. If you want to use it, you have to use it on their terms.I didn’t like the terms so I dont use it. I prefer paying Apple upfront with money instead of paying other companies with my privacy and attention.
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        The issue isn't that I can't use SMS without paying. Even if I am willing to pay, it does me no good if none of my friends are using it because they're all only on WhatsApp themselves.
        chaostheory 4y ago
        Everyone with a phone still has access to SMS. Your personal choice is not Meta’s problem, nor does meta have a monopoly on communication. No one, especially in developed countries, is forced to use meta services. There are many alternatives. I use iMessage myself which is great
        josephcsible 4y ago
        It's not just my personal choice. I can't choose to use SMS to communicate if the people I need to talk to don't also make the same choice. And iMessage falls back to SMS when you send messages to people who don't have it.
        chaostheory 4y ago
        SMS is standard and available on every phone by default. Again people’s personal choices, many of which have alternatives, are not meta’s problem.
        josephcsible 4y ago
        Remember when Nestlé gave new mothers free trials of baby formula, that lasted just long enough that they'd stop producing breast milk? Was that okay too, since the mothers could have declined but made the personal choice to accept?
        chaostheory 4y ago
        It’s a bad analogy because in this case, the alternatives never went away. If you don’t want to pay for a service upfront with money, you need to pay for it with ads on the service provider’s terms. That is your personal problem stemming from your personal choices. There are alternatives.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
- voidwtf 4y ago
  Luckily we have laws in place in many countries that invalidate contracts that are clearly disadvantaged to one party. Meta made a decision they were entitled to make, though I understand that this is a separate point of controversy wherein company’s are arbitrarily banning users across their platforms with no recourse. Metas TOS holds no weight over you outside their platform. Indeed the only weight they try to hold over you outside their platform (mandatory binding arbitration) has been demonstrated to be unenforceable in the U.S. at the very least.

Your argument is basically "what Meta did is okay since you agreed to it in the terms of service that you accepted", right? I'm saying that like selling yourself into indentured servitude, accepting Meta's TOS is not always a completely free choice.

chaostheory 4y ago
If you don't like Meta's terms, don't use Meta products and services. It's that simple. There's no indentured servitude because you're not giving Meta free work. In this case, people don't want to pay for Meta services by viewing ads. If you don't want to pay, don't use the service.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > don't use Meta products and services. It's that simple. Doesn't that basically completely cut you off from electronic communication with everyone else in most European countries, where WhatsApp has basically completely replaced SMS?
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    SMS didn’t disappear. You just have to pay for it with money. WhatsApp also isn’t the only IM on the market. If you want to use it, you have to use it on their terms.I didn’t like the terms so I dont use it. I prefer paying Apple upfront with money instead of paying other companies with my privacy and attention.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      The issue isn't that I can't use SMS without paying. Even if I am willing to pay, it does me no good if none of my friends are using it because they're all only on WhatsApp themselves.
      - chaostheory 4y ago
        Everyone with a phone still has access to SMS. Your personal choice is not Meta’s problem, nor does meta have a monopoly on communication. No one, especially in developed countries, is forced to use meta services. There are many alternatives. I use iMessage myself which is great
        josephcsible 4y ago
        It's not just my personal choice. I can't choose to use SMS to communicate if the people I need to talk to don't also make the same choice. And iMessage falls back to SMS when you send messages to people who don't have it.
        chaostheory 4y ago
        SMS is standard and available on every phone by default. Again people’s personal choices, many of which have alternatives, are not meta’s problem.
        josephcsible 4y ago
        Remember when Nestlé gave new mothers free trials of baby formula, that lasted just long enough that they'd stop producing breast milk? Was that okay too, since the mothers could have declined but made the personal choice to accept?
        chaostheory 4y ago
        It’s a bad analogy because in this case, the alternatives never went away. If you don’t want to pay for a service upfront with money, you need to pay for it with ads on the service provider’s terms. That is your personal problem stemming from your personal choices. There are alternatives.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
voidwtf 4y ago
Luckily we have laws in place in many countries that invalidate contracts that are clearly disadvantaged to one party. Meta made a decision they were entitled to make, though I understand that this is a separate point of controversy wherein company’s are arbitrarily banning users across their platforms with no recourse. Metas TOS holds no weight over you outside their platform. Indeed the only weight they try to hold over you outside their platform (mandatory binding arbitration) has been demonstrated to be unenforceable in the U.S. at the very least.