In Europe there is a mindset that companies can become so big that you can not avoid them anymore. Nobody forces you to use Google or Facebook, but you are put at a disadvantage if you do not use them. Facebook is not free. You trade your data for usage.
Google? Maybe. Facebook? I would argue that using Facebook is a net negative and you're at an advantage if you ditch it.
Facebook is used in different markets in different ways. In Japan for example it is a common medium for corporate communication, much like slack.
Facebook, to my knowledge, didn't ask to be a link in the chain of immigration policy.
You're not wrong, but what point are you making exactly in this thread? You're responding to a thread in which the top-poster argues that we shouldn't complain about a free service, and then the point is made that facebook may effect immigration. Are you saying that we shouldn't complain because we can just not enter that country? That we should avoid facebook, as well as the countries that ask for facebook credentia…
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Nobody owes you anything - not Facebook, not Google, not the coffeeshop down the street. Governments that are not your own owe you less than nothing, if such a thing exists. Don't like the service they provide, or how they do their business? Don't whine about it online and clog up our feeds, just... stop using the service. Behold - instant peace.
You're not wrong, but what point are you making exactly in this thread? You're responding to a thread in which the top-poster argues that we shouldn't complain about a free service, and then the point is made that facebook may effect immigration. Are you saying that we shouldn't complain because we can just not enter that country? That we should avoid facebook, as well as the countries that ask for facebook credentia…
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Nobody owes you anything - not Facebook, not Google, not the coffeeshop down the street. Governments that are not your own owe you less than nothing, if such a thing exists. Don't like the service they provide, or how they do their business? Don't whine about it online and clog up our feeds, just... stop using the service. Behold - instant peace.
By requiring real names, Facebook is trying to combat the sort of social discord that occurs on sites like Reddit where people routinely abandon identities, or create throwaway identities to participate in specific fora. Imagine if car license plates had our name and home address on them, would we be as likely to commit road rage, pick our noses, double park, etc. Facebook sees itself as a commons first, and the prod…
> Imagine if car license plates had our name and home address on them
Dunno about where you live, but in the UK the registration authority maps license plates to registered owners addresses, and you can ask them to look it up for you: https://www.gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla
The UK of course still has road rage and double parking.
WRT online abuse and "hate preaching", some of the most insidious stuff is done in public by people proudly using their own names. Like Katie "Final Solution" Hopkins.
You're not wrong, but what point are you making exactly in this thread? You're responding to a thread in which the top-poster argues that we shouldn't complain about a free service, and then the point is made that facebook may effect immigration. Are you saying that we shouldn't complain because we can just not enter that country? That we should avoid facebook, as well as the countries that ask for facebook credentia…
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Nobody owes you anything - not Facebook, not Google, not the coffeeshop down the street. Governments that are not your own owe you less than nothing, if such a thing exists. Don't like the service they provide, or how they do their business? Don't whine about it online and clog up our feeds, just... stop using the service. Behold - instant peace.
> not the coffeeshop down the street
The US had this argument over businesses with "Whites Only" signs and similar, and it was concluded that "just don't go there" is an inadequate response once the problem is large enough.
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Nobody owes you anything - not Facebook, not Google, not the coffeeshop down the street. Governments that are not your own owe you less than nothing, if such a thing exists. Don't like the service they provide, or how they do their business? Don't whine about it online and clog up our feeds, just... stop using the service. Behold - instant peace.
That's what I thought, thanks for clarifying.
My pleasure, happy to help. Thanks for keeping it civil ;-)
The real irony of these threads on HN: no one has ever run a social network. If they did, they would realize that mixing pseudonyms with real names is a formula for disaster. It’s probably the easiest way to continuously bother someone and troll groups to no end.
Seriously. Twitter gets crucified for a lack of accountability, now Facebook gets criticized for having too much. You can't embrace online anonymity only when it benefits you.
I don't see why it's confusing.
Bob can have whatever name they want. They don't get to threaten to rape and murder another user.
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Nobody owes you anything - not Facebook, not Google, not the coffeeshop down the street. Governments that are not your own owe you less than nothing, if such a thing exists. Don't like the service they provide, or how they do their business? Don't whine about it online and clog up our feeds, just... stop using the service. Behold - instant peace.
> not the coffeeshop down the street The US had this argument over businesses with "Whites Only" signs and similar, and it was concluded that "just don't go there" is an inadequate response once the problem is large enough.
And if Facebook's policy was "real names for LGBTQFM only", or "real names for gay black Irish jews", I would be right there on the front lines with you in my outrage. Don't mess with the protected classes. But that's not the situation we have here. The situation is, "real names for everyone, regardless of race, color, creed, nationality", yada yada yada. Regardless of how poorly they're implementing it, that's their policy. Don't like it, don't go there.
It's a 'privilege' to not be on Facebook? On Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs, nowhere is there any mention of 'online services' or 'Facebook access', or even 'Internet access'. If ever there was a textbook "Sh*t HN Says" comment worthy of the moniker, yours is it. Facebook is a business, just like your local grocer, just like any number of restaurants, just like a bookstore. If any of the above aren't giving you the serv…
You might want to educate yourself on concepts called monopolies and network effects before you make yourself look even more clueless. Also, ever noticed how Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs also doesn't mention electricity or gasoline? You are kindof at the wrong level of abstraction there.
Facebook is not a monopoly. I'd rather make the argument that Microsoft, today in 2017, is a monopoly (protip: they arent) than try to argue that Facebook is one.
1. You don't have to use Facebook. You really, really don't. 2. Facebook is under no obligation to provide societal benefits for you. It doesn't even have a moral duty to act upon your complaints. Why? See 1. It's not a government program, you are not forced to use it, you are not even buying anything from it. You are just complaining about free stuff. So. Seriously. Just stop using it. PS. I'm not defending Facebook…
> You are just complaining about free stuff. That's bullshit. Just because an exchange isn't for money, doesn't mean you are getting things for free.
If the transaction is no longer worth it to you, you are free to walk away from said transaction.