> "do it my way or do it with someone else" is not a protection racket. I totally agree. Perhaps my post was ambiguous as this is exactly what I was trying to

> "do it my way or do it with someone else" is not a protection racket. I totally agree. Perhaps my post was ambiguous as this is exactly what I was trying to say. My comment was not about the law it was about rules set by private institutions - Facebook are not making any laws. I do not know whether (2) and (3) are required by law, but it is irrelevant to the point I was making, which is: Arrington's definition of 'protection racket' would clasify lots of rules that we consider beneficial to society as 'protection rackets', therefore his accusation is unfair. You're quite right in saying that "..you just have to find folks willing to do the same..", this applies to (2) (3) and Facebook. I.e. the analogy holds: Just as a porn-star can look for work where STD tests are not required#, developers can choose to not develop for Facebook (or be unverified). If the market of non-STD-requiring-studios / webapps-outside-facebook proves too small to be viable for them then they have to get-the-test/ get-the-app-verified. It's no different. It seems to be that in both these cases the person would be best served by paying the cash to get verified, but it is a free world, so they can choose to do whatever they think best for them. (# - even if it is the law, they can always go outside the US) > I'm pretty sure that there's no law requiring "assessment fees and membership fees" for professional coaches either. There is no law that I am aware of. But the professional bodies of which I am a part all have rules that do involve the payment of fees for accreditation, and I'm glad they do.