41–50 of 90 posts
Even taking into account some level of exaggeration, this is laughable. Facebook advertisers might be Facebook partners. The Facebook-user relationship cannot be further from partnership, it is the relation between a farmer and their livestock.
The worst is that as soon as Facebook detects the stink on the internet of this, they will rectify the situation for ArsTechnica, but everyone else will still be screwed. When you are dealing with virtual monopolies that have zero customer support and negative processes (Facebook, Google, etc) getting locked out does not mean that you get go somewhere else, it literally mean getting locked out of an entire aspect of…
"It's not fair! Facebook has a responsibility to its users! I demand them to do such and such!"
So what if facebook was never around? You are in debt to them for such a great service, they never forced you to become so dependent. People lived for tens of thousands of years without social networking, and they'll continue to do so.
The worst is that as soon as Facebook detects the stink on the internet of this, they will rectify the situation for ArsTechnica, but everyone else will still be screwed. When you are dealing with virtual monopolies that have zero customer support and negative processes (Facebook, Google, etc) getting locked out does not mean that you get go somewhere else, it literally mean getting locked out of an entire aspect of…
Why should facebook care? They are a "monopoly" that you willingly submitted yourself to. They created a great service and you bought into it. If all your friends are on facebook then that's you and your friends' own damn fault. "It's not fair! Facebook has a responsibility to its users! I demand them to do such and such!" So what if facebook was never around? You are in debt to them for such a great service, they ne…
The issue at hand isn't whether or not Facebook has the power to do this, but rather that the system is intrinsically moronic in that it involves no checks and balances. It is trivial to abuse.
You don't like a company's Facebook fan page, and you can have it removed with a little effort into building an email. You don't actually have to prove anything, just wave your hands.
In essence, you seem to be defending the right of Facebook's public users to disable accounts and pages on Facebook on a whim. Is that correct?
Easy way to fix this: Flag everything you see on Facebook. Once it starts crippling everyday users, they will take more care in taking stuff down just because a random person complains
Random abuse against innocent people isn't really the moral solution. Public complaints and negative press for Facebook is a better way.
I feel like I'm repeating myself daily at the moment. If you're not paying for it, you shouldn't expect anything . If people paid for the services they used, they'd have recourse and the interests of the provider and the consumer would be aligned. As it stands, why would or should Facebook give a shit? Brands building their online presence via Facebook are mad as far as I'm concerned, Facebook owns that content, they…
I am paying for it with a very valuable commodity: my personal information. I have every right to complain about getting the crappy end of the stick when stuff like this happens in the same way you have the right to complain about a crummy contract with AT&T or your roofer. Just because the currency in question is not (directly) the USD doesn't mean I'm not paying for it.
I feel like I'm repeating myself daily at the moment. If you're not paying for it, you shouldn't expect anything . If people paid for the services they used, they'd have recourse and the interests of the provider and the consumer would be aligned. As it stands, why would or should Facebook give a shit? Brands building their online presence via Facebook are mad as far as I'm concerned, Facebook owns that content, they…
I am paying for it with a very valuable commodity: my personal information. I have every right to complain about getting the crappy end of the stick when stuff like this happens in the same way you have the right to complain about a crummy contract with AT&T or your roofer. Just because the currency in question is not (directly) the USD doesn't mean I'm not paying for it.
You get to complain about AT&T and your roofer because you have a contract with them entitling you to a certain level of service in exchange for your money. Your only agreement with Facebook is Facebook's AUP / ToS / privacy policy, which gives you no such rights. If you don't think it's an equitable agreement, don't accept it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should facebook care? They are a "monopoly" that you willingly submitted yourself to. They created a great service and you bought into it. If all your friends are on facebook then that's you and your friends' own damn fault. "It's not fair! Facebook has a responsibility to its users! I demand them to do such and such!" So what if facebook was never around? You are in debt to them for such a great service, they ne…
I can't help but think this blame mentality is the root of a lot of problems with the intended discourse, here. The issue at hand isn't whether or not Facebook has the power to do this, but rather that the system is intrinsically moronic in that it involves no checks and balances. It is trivial to abuse. You don't like a company's Facebook fan page, and you can have it removed with a little effort into building an em…
If you want to guarantee the stability of your content, you need to get a contract or host it yourself. Facebook doesn't owe you anything.
Counter-notice, but only if you are positive it's a bogus takedown. https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf (not actually a pdf) They have to put it back online with a counter-notice.
No they don't. Doing so merely gives them safe harbor from any liability for having taken it down. Facebook has no legal obligation to its members to maintain the content in the first place, and therefore no obligation to pay attention to a counter-notice.