Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 201 posts

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#191

Post by stale2002 »

root_axis wrote: post #188
stale2002 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> e fact that you would rely on Facebook in such a manner It is the reality of the situation that a whole lot of people rely on facebook in such a manner, and because of the network effect they would be unable to convince all of their friends and family to switch to other platforms. One person cannot defeat platform locking and network effects. > while a phone network is fundamental infrastructure Not really. It woul…

> It is the reality of the situation that a whole lot of people rely on facebook You're just wrong. The overwhelming majority of people use a variety of communication services like e-mail, imessage/sms and many others, and this is common knowledge, people who only use Facebook for communication are frankly extremely rare.

> people who only

I am saying that they rely on it more for communication than they do on phone calls.

I communicate with people much more over Facebook than I do through actual phone calls, and it would be less of a problem to be banned from ever making phone calls again than it would be to be banned from facebook.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#192

Post by root_axis »

stale2002 wrote: post #191
root_axis wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is the reality of the situation that a whole lot of people rely on facebook You're just wrong. The overwhelming majority of people use a variety of communication services like e-mail, imessage/sms and many others, and this is common knowledge, people who only use Facebook for communication are frankly extremely rare.

> people who only I am saying that they rely on it more for communication than they do on phone calls. I communicate with people much more over Facebook than I do through actual phone calls, and it would be less of a problem to be banned from ever making phone calls again than it would be to be banned from facebook.

> I am saying that they rely on it more for communication than they do on phone calls.

Nobody is talking about phone calls and you know it. It doesn't matter that you use Facebook more than anything else, it doesn't change what Facebook actually is. If you use discord or slack to do most of your communicating that doesn't mean they become utilities, that's just your personal preference.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#193

Post by stale2002 »

root_axis wrote: post #192
stale2002 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people who only I am saying that they rely on it more for communication than they do on phone calls. I communicate with people much more over Facebook than I do through actual phone calls, and it would be less of a problem to be banned from ever making phone calls again than it would be to be banned from facebook.

> I am saying that they rely on it more for communication than they do on phone calls. Nobody is talking about phone calls and you know it. It doesn't matter that you use Facebook more than anything else, it doesn't change what Facebook actually is. If you use discord or slack to do most of your communicating that doesn't mean they become utilities, that's just your personal preference.

> Nobody is talking about phone calls

Literally I was the one to bring up this example in the very beginning. It was my example, that I chose at the start. So yes, that is relevant.

The fact of the matter is, that me being banned from ever making phone calls again would absolutely be a larger problem for me, and many other people, than if we were banned from using facebook.

> It doesn't matter that you use Facebook more than anything else

Of course it does. It is a point of comparison, so as to show that it would be a bigger problem to be banned from facebook than it would be to be banned from making phone calls.

> that's just your personal preference.

I can assure you that there are many people for whom it would be a bigger problem to be banned from facebook than to be banned from making phone calls.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#194

Post by root_axis »

stale2002 wrote: post #193
root_axis wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am saying that they rely on it more for communication than they do on phone calls. Nobody is talking about phone calls and you know it. It doesn't matter that you use Facebook more than anything else, it doesn't change what Facebook actually is. If you use discord or slack to do most of your communicating that doesn't mean they become utilities, that's just your personal preference.

> Nobody is talking about phone calls Literally I was the one to bring up this example in the very beginning. It was my example, that I chose at the start. So yes, that is relevant. The fact of the matter is, that me being banned from ever making phone calls again would absolutely be a larger problem for me, and many other people, than if we were banned from using facebook. > It doesn't matter that you use Facebook m…

> It was my example, that I chose at the start. So yes, that is relevant.

It's not relevant because you're ignoring the fact that "the phone network" doesn't primarily mean "phone calls" it primarily means "internet access".

> The fact of the matter is, that me being banned from ever making phone calls again would absolutely be a larger problem for me

Yes, you keep repeating that over and over again (3 times in this response) but what you don't seem to understand is that nobody is forcing you to rely exclusively on a single website for all your communications, that is a self-imposed restriction that isn't meaningful when trying to decide if a website meets the definition of a utility.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#195

Post by stale2002 »

root_axis wrote: post #194
stale2002 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody is talking about phone calls Literally I was the one to bring up this example in the very beginning. It was my example, that I chose at the start. So yes, that is relevant. The fact of the matter is, that me being banned from ever making phone calls again would absolutely be a larger problem for me, and many other people, than if we were banned from using facebook. > It doesn't matter that you use Facebook m…

> It was my example, that I chose at the start. So yes, that is relevant. It's not relevant because you're ignoring the fact that "the phone network" doesn't primarily mean "phone calls" it primarily means "internet access". > The fact of the matter is, that me being banned from ever making phone calls again would absolutely be a larger problem for me Yes, you keep repeating that over and over again (3 times in this…

> what you don't seem to understand is that nobody is forcing you to rely exclusively on a single website for all your communications

That does not change the fact that it would be a bigger problem for me to be banned from facebook than it would be for me to be banned from making phone calls, lol.

So when you say this "nobody is forcing you", you are ignoring the fact that they would be forcing a problem on me that would be larger than if I were banned from making phone calls.

So yes. They would be forcing an issue on me that would be larger than if they banned me from making phone calls.

> ignoring the fact that "the phone network"

Phone systems have fallen under utilities laws since before the internet existed. Therefore the analogy to phone calls is relevant.

You can look at home phone line systems. A home phone lines, that gives zero internet access, still falls under utilities laws.

Are you aware that a landline, that gives zero internet access, would still have to follow utilities laws? Just want to make sure you are aware of that.

> meets the definition of a utility

A perfectly reasonable thing to do is compare it to how much a problem it would be to switch from a different utility.

A landline, that has no internet access, is a utility. It falls under utilities laws, even if the singular only thing that it does, is make phone calls, without any internet access. Phone calls, without internet, is a utility.

And switching away from the system that only allows you to make phone calls, and has no internet, and is therefore a utility, would be easier than switching away from facebook.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#196

Post by tomcat27 »

beagle3 wrote: post #169
macspoofing wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook, and Twitter and Google were built by particular libertarian-types who were young and idealistic. They erred on the side of openness and really disliked regulating content. I don't mind them. The people who are taking over these companies, those people I'm afraid of because they are political and their first instinct is to push ideology and censorship.

Facebook always has the “dumb f*cks” mentality. Google was benevolent (or at least seemed that way) until they had any competition, at which point they threw out the “don’t be evil” motto, but same guys (page, brin, Schmidt) were still at the helm. Wasn’t following twitter closely, but Dorsey is still running it - same guy. It’s the same guys, not some “nefarious guys taking over”.

good point!

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#197

Post by Natanael_L »

stale2002 wrote: post #190
Natanael_L wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that because you can not replace Facebook, or because it's merely inconvenient to do so? Because the law doesn't protect convenience in these contexts.

> Is that because you can not replace Facebook, or because it's merely inconvenient to do so As in it would be much more difficult to replace Facebook as a communication platform for me than it would be for me to be banned from making phone calls ever again. So facebook is more in the category of "can not replace" than being able to make phone calls.

Again, is that because you literally don't have the physical option of communicating by other ways, or because the people you want to communicate with are too lazy to use another option?

If I ask you to meet me at the bar and you're banned from the bar I've selected, it's not the bar's problem.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#198

Post by krustyburger »

ethanwillis wrote: post #132
krustyburger wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly is Netflix close to being a public utility?

How exactly does one thing out of a set of things not form the set of things?

Ah yes, it’s assumed that 20% of the set is not included but let’s use the snappy acronym anyway.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#199

Post by stale2002 »

Natanael_L wrote: post #197
stale2002 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is that because you can not replace Facebook, or because it's merely inconvenient to do so As in it would be much more difficult to replace Facebook as a communication platform for me than it would be for me to be banned from making phone calls ever again. So facebook is more in the category of "can not replace" than being able to make phone calls.

Again, is that because you literally don't have the physical option of communicating by other ways, or because the people you want to communicate with are too lazy to use another option? If I ask you to meet me at the bar and you're banned from the bar I've selected, it's not the bar's problem.

> literally don't have the physical option of communicating

I am saying that the problems of getting kicked off of a facebook are larger than that of getting kicked off of the communication utility that is phone calls.

And this is due to things like network effect.

And these issues and prevention that make it difficult for people to switch is larger on facebook than it is for phone calls.

So the "physical prevention" is larger for facebook than it is for phone calls.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#200

Post by Natanael_L »

stale2002 wrote: post #199
Natanael_L wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, is that because you literally don't have the physical option of communicating by other ways, or because the people you want to communicate with are too lazy to use another option? If I ask you to meet me at the bar and you're banned from the bar I've selected, it's not the bar's problem.

> literally don't have the physical option of communicating I am saying that the problems of getting kicked off of a facebook are larger than that of getting kicked off of the communication utility that is phone calls. And this is due to things like network effect. And these issues and prevention that make it difficult for people to switch is larger on facebook than it is for phone calls. So the "physical prevention"…

I seriously doubt that. Network effect "just" makes a particular means of communication more favorable - it doesn't prevent the use of any of the options.

Not being able to use the phone cuts you of from a lot of services where no option exists.

Post reply on HN