4 ms·

> Social networking as a fundamental human right? Nobody, absolutely nobody said that ever. So the question is why are you asking that question? No, social net

> Social networking as a fundamental human right? Nobody, absolutely nobody said that ever. So the question is why are you asking that question? No, social networks are not a fundamental right. Privacy is. What is so hard to understand about that?

sinuhe69 3y ago
Yes, I find it ridiculous, too. But then tell me how would you run a platform that costs hundred of millions dollars without ads and without fee? Is that also too hard to comprehend?
- bayindirh 3y ago
  There are services which costs less and provides way more. Meta is just setting an unjustified exorbitant price to drive people off of paid option, that's all. None of the services I pay costs that much yearly, and sum of top 5 most expensive services I use is still below that amount. ...or they're just an extremely inefficient company, I don't know.
- ghusto 3y ago
  They couldn't, and that's a good thing. There are plenty of companies running non-targeted ads that are doing just fine, and don't cost millions of dollars to run a year. Facebook wants scale at any cost, and that is unacceptable. The argument that we have to put up with something we never asked for, but has been carefully integrated into society to be utility-like is disingenuous. I don't want Facebook or WhatsApp, but in the Netherlands they are now used by schools, and even government agencies for communication. You can't have it both ways: Either you're indispensable (something Facebook has worked very hard to become) and therefore treated as a utility, or you're a private company that can do as they please.
- usea 3y ago
  > But then tell me how would you run a platform that costs hundred of millions dollars without ads and without fee? You wouldn't. So what? You don't need to do that.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > how would you run a platform Maybe you wouldn't. Maybe you'd go bankrupt. Can't say I'm sad about that outcome. Businesses that are only viable if they can violate people's rights don't deserve to exist.
- Kbelicius 3y ago
  > But then tell me how would you run a platform that costs hundred of millions dollars without ads and without fee? Is that also too hard to comprehend? No it isn't hard to comprehend but it isn't relevant here. Privacy doesn't mean no ads and nobody is preventing facebook to require users to pay a fee. It is similar to organs. It is illegal to sell/buy them. You can still freely give them away(donate them). Privacy is similar to that. You can't buy/sell it but you can freely give it away. In this situation Facebook seems to be trying to sell you your privacy.
  - ordinaryperson 3y ago
    Targeted advertising is not similar to selling internal organs.
    - Kbelicius 3y ago
      I think that you replied to the wrong comment since I did not say anything like that.
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  Ads and fees are both perfectly fine. Tracking without freely given consent is the only thing that is not allowed.

sinuhe69 3y ago

Yes, I find it ridiculous, too. But then tell me how would you run a platform that costs hundred of millions dollars without ads and without fee? Is that also too hard to comprehend?

bayindirh 3y ago
There are services which costs less and provides way more. Meta is just setting an unjustified exorbitant price to drive people off of paid option, that's all. None of the services I pay costs that much yearly, and sum of top 5 most expensive services I use is still below that amount. ...or they're just an extremely inefficient company, I don't know.
ghusto 3y ago
They couldn't, and that's a good thing. There are plenty of companies running non-targeted ads that are doing just fine, and don't cost millions of dollars to run a year. Facebook wants scale at any cost, and that is unacceptable. The argument that we have to put up with something we never asked for, but has been carefully integrated into society to be utility-like is disingenuous. I don't want Facebook or WhatsApp, but in the Netherlands they are now used by schools, and even government agencies for communication. You can't have it both ways: Either you're indispensable (something Facebook has worked very hard to become) and therefore treated as a utility, or you're a private company that can do as they please.
usea 3y ago
> But then tell me how would you run a platform that costs hundred of millions dollars without ads and without fee? You wouldn't. So what? You don't need to do that.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> how would you run a platform Maybe you wouldn't. Maybe you'd go bankrupt. Can't say I'm sad about that outcome. Businesses that are only viable if they can violate people's rights don't deserve to exist.
Kbelicius 3y ago
> But then tell me how would you run a platform that costs hundred of millions dollars without ads and without fee? Is that also too hard to comprehend? No it isn't hard to comprehend but it isn't relevant here. Privacy doesn't mean no ads and nobody is preventing facebook to require users to pay a fee. It is similar to organs. It is illegal to sell/buy them. You can still freely give them away(donate them). Privacy is similar to that. You can't buy/sell it but you can freely give it away. In this situation Facebook seems to be trying to sell you your privacy.
- ordinaryperson 3y ago
  Targeted advertising is not similar to selling internal organs.
  - Kbelicius 3y ago
    I think that you replied to the wrong comment since I did not say anything like that.
TheCoelacanth 3y ago
Ads and fees are both perfectly fine. Tracking without freely given consent is the only thing that is not allowed.