Meta has banned the personal Facebook accounts for everyone on our team

Post by LocalH » Fri, Sep 30, 2022, 12:48 AM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #229

tsimionescu wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By this logic, it should be illegal / a breach of contract for you to run an ad blocker, since the company may not make money? Should you also be forced to look at ads and not switch channels while they're on TV, with the channel being free to cut access if they find you haven been looking at the ads they serve? This logic really bends over backwards to support FB's and similar business models.

Rather than just blocking the request for the ad, if an ad blocker allowed the requesting site to make the request for the ad but then just sent the data to the browser's equivalent of /dev/null, I'd be fine with that as long as I never had to see/hear the ad. This is of course ripe for abuse, but that's just synonymous for digital advertising in general. I don't consider it any different than me hitting mute on the…

Post by bfdm » Fri, Sep 30, 2022, 12:56 AM UTC

Matheus28 wrote: post #143

bfdm wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't I be able to uae the software of my choosing? If i habe an account and have properly authenticated, the client I use is my choice. You can't reasonably make the "go elsewhere" argument with the monopoly hold FB has on much social data. We need to choose yo regulate them and others to force interoperability, or at the very least allow comcom explicitly (competitive compatibility).

So you want to consume their content, use their servers, but not display their ads?

Post by 93po » Fri, Sep 30, 2022, 3:15 AM UTC

bobsil1 wrote: post #416

93po wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this the narrative now? Tr*mp is a terrorist? Are we holding the same standards against previous presidents, too? Is drone striking Americans without due process also a terrorist move? Or are we only going to focus on the one president that said mean things on Twitter?

*that tried to lynch VP, Congress via tweets

Post by safety1st » Fri, Sep 30, 2022, 3:41 AM UTC

stjohnswarts wrote: post #336

safety1st wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you're a monopoly and then you can do whatever you want because your customers have no alternative. Which Meta is (well, it's a duopoly with Google). Anyway Meta's customers, and the only entities it cares about, are large ad buyers. None of them will give a crap about this random app and these random human beings getting banned. This has zero impact on their ability to continue writing checks to Meta and cont…

There are plenty platforms out there besides meta; numerous places, fox comments, stormfront forums, gab, truth social, 4 chan, reddit, your own blog, twitter. No one can say that there aren't other platforms.

Post by chaostheory » Fri, Sep 30, 2022, 5:12 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #412

chaostheory wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are alternatives because your friends can also switch services. The problem is that you are not willing to pay either money up front or with watching ads. That is not a meta problem, that is problem with your personal preferences no matter how you want to spin it. There are many alternatives available right now and they didn’t disappear like your bad analogy. What you’ve written is clearly disingenuous because y…

> The problem is that you are not willing to pay either money up front or with watching ads. > clearly disingenuous because you’re not willing to pay for SMS Why are you saying this?? I am fully willing to pay that much. josephcsible also sounds fully willing to pay that much.