I know the article is old, but the author showed a severe lack of common sense.
Facebook is NOT a backup. If you only keep stuff in your Facebook account, then it is as 'at risk' as if you only kept on the hard-drive of your ageing laptop that you bought on discount in Walmart/ASDA ten years ago.
This oft quoted adage also applies: 'If you are not paying for the product, then you are the product'. The author seemed to think that Facebook owe him for some reason, and that he is fully justified/entitled in begging for his account back. Facebook is a private company who most of the time let the general public mingle in the lobby of its HQ[1]. As their lobby is still their property, they can refuse entry whenever they like.
Something needs to be done about Facebook's near dominance of the Social Media space. If we let this run unchecked for much longer, there won't be an 'internet' - just millions of stale, abandoned websites all simply redirecting you to their respective Facebook Pages instead. It also wouldn't surprise me if at some point, new phones will be released where the browser app is no longer installed by default, but the Facebook app is. Even if this happened today, most non-technical users wouldn't even notice.
---
[1] Because the lobby is full of adverts from Facebook's business partners and Facebook gets a nice cut if you buy something being advertised.
Law is full of regulations and court precedents that restrict what people can do to their private property. Here on HN people seem to think that private property is like a subclass in python where the owner is free to define whatever method or property he wants and overwrite rules inherited from the society superclass. It's not.
Landlords cannot just evict renters based on the landlord's own terms of service, not even a renter's non-paying children or girlfriend with whom the landlord didn't contract, and not even the renter himself although the stopped paying: The landlord needs to follow the rules of society, go through a bailiff's court or follow similar strict procedures defined in society to ensure that mandatory law is followed.
Not everybody can set up a medical clinic on their private property, even if they offer their services for free.
TV stations in many European countries can't show hidden ads in programmes and cannot show ads for kids for certain products. Even though the viewers didn't pay. Even though they are free not to watch.
In most places landowners cannot freely decide to do what they want with their land, like building a factory, without taking into consideration zoning laws and without hearing the neighbors or wider community as well.
For millennia, what we today call criminal laws, have applied on private property as well. You can't just hit somebody in the face because they are in your house and the terms on the door clearly says that you can. Think that's ridiculous? Well, it used to be that restaurants in America could chose to serve whites only. It was the choice of the property owner. Until it wasn't. Courts and congress decided that such practices were so despicable that the general interest of non-discrimination outweighed the interest in business owners getting to decide for themselves. Same with businesses hiring men only. Today most of us regard it as obvious that non discrimination laws trump the interest of private owners. A few decades ago, most people thought the owner could choose freely whom to hire.
I hope we will start regulating the new advertising industry comprised of social networks and search engines more tightly.
Absolutely - and the argument that "Facebook usage is like common law licenses of invitation onto private property" tacitly assumes that Facebook is like private property, and that the moral justification of "my private property, my rules" is correct.
It's intuitive - I'll give you that - but we need to decide amongst ourselves whether this behaviour is something we want to encourage or discourage into the future.
Note how the conditions for invoking the castle doctrine are set by society, not by the property owner. It's not a method defined within the class. It's a method inherited from the superclass.
You missed entirely flexie's point. Flexie gave numerous examples of circumstances in which the owner of a private property can not legally do as he/she pleases. Your response is to mention the castle doctrine. What is the purpose of this?
Your response is especially bad because according to the linked article:
"..as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force..."
Note that is says, "in certain circumstances". Flexie wrote that you can't just hit someone in the face in your house. Flexie is correct in this and the castle doctrine in no way disputes this.
There is another option. Consider sites like Facebook to be public accommodations, and create new laws regulating acceptable behavior of digital public accommodations.
Facebook is a significant part of our society. It is not clear why it should be free democratic oversight.
They'll just title themselves as a "private club", like other organizations that wanted to continue discriminating after public accommodations were enacted.
And in all fairness, FB originally started that way when you needed a university email address to join.
As long as we are updating the definition of public accommodation, we can also define the "private".
My point was more that it is not unreasonable to look to regulations to deal with Facebook. The regulations do not necessarily have to be "public accommodations", I just cited them as the most relevant legal concept I was aware of.
I am more than happy to give Facebook as much rope as it needs.
No worries though, other sovereign entities are trying to do what you suggest, so we get the best of both worlds. It's a wonderful demonstration of why nation-states should defend their independence.
'If you are not paying for the product, then you are the product'
This adage is beginning to show its age - virtually all services that can get their hands on your data end up selling it nowadays, whether you pay them or not. I heard even some restaurant chains sell data on who they served and when.
> Something needs to be done about Facebook's near dominance of the Social Media space
Not gonna stop now, they just have the money to buy market share. If people had jumped ship after the Insta acquire then it could have been a blow to them wasting all that money on a dead space but nah people still kept using it and fell for it because they didn't change things right away and now Instagram is a mess of ads and stolen features and the creepy data sharing from FB is oozing in through friend "suggestions".
Fair enough, still though, you'd think someone at facebook would have returned his photos and videos if he had requested, just to be nice. We are moving to a cloud based world, and I'd hate for it to be a world where people rely widely on cloud based services and risk losing their vital documents if they get banned from a given service.
We're there, and have been for years. The employees aren't paid to be "nice", and if you don't have a contract with the company storing your data, then you're making a mistake relying on them.
Rely on them for convenient access to your files...but not as your prime copy, or your essential backup. You use their services at their whim.
It doesn't mesh well with the corporate amorality that large organizations seem to tend toward in pursuit of profit.
> Lol, yes, of course if it makes lots of money then it doesn't need to be run morally or with any degree of humanity. /s
Why did you add the sarcasm tag? The proof's in the pudding: When Facebook throws people off their platform, the first, second, and third reactions of the victims seem to be trying to climb back on. Apparently, they don't "need" to be run morally.
You are right in that Facebook is not a backup, even if it was a paid service.
But the old age doesn't apply. While we may be the product we are also the client. Fb does have a certain responsibility. Especially when they are encouraging people to user the platform for just what she as using it for.
Ignoring any legal ramifications, it is in fb's best interests to help her because they need people like her. If we assume that we are the product, fb needs to do a certain amount of work to keep the product happy, or it goes away. I'm not saying they have to bend over backwards to help everyone, but at some point the backlash could hurt them... Yeah it probably won't, but it is still good business sense to help your "product"
But there was no reasoning given as to why he had his account disabled. Facebook is now so ubiquitous that it is in danger of becoming an essential service.
Try as I might, I have had a very difficult time explaining to people that trying to print a photo you uploaded to Facebook or sent via text is not going to turn out well.
"Did Chad ask you with a big fat grin on his face to put everything that matters to you in this awesome garage which he built solely for the purpose of 'helping' people show off and connect without having to know how to build shelves? No? Does he arbitrarily kick some out, and let others stay? Yes? Then this cartoon doesn't apply at all."
It's not about business or legality, it's about being a dick or not, or, as demonstrated here, about being a coward or not when someone's being a dick to your friend. Of course, seeing how hard Facebook and other middlemen try to insert themselves into fucking everything, it's about a bit more than just being a dick, but it's pointless to discuss the ocean before we're clear about what is the water drop and what is the sophistry.
Facebook is NOT a backup. If you only keep stuff in your Facebook account, then it is as 'at risk' as if you only kept on the hard-drive of your ageing laptop that you bought on discount in Walmart/ASDA ten years ago.
This oft quoted adage also applies: 'If you are not paying for the product, then you are the product'. The author seemed to think that Facebook owe him for some reason, and that he is fully justified/entitled in begging for his account back. Facebook is a private company who most of the time let the general public mingle in the lobby of its HQ[1]. As their lobby is still their property, they can refuse entry whenever they like.
Something needs to be done about Facebook's near dominance of the Social Media space. If we let this run unchecked for much longer, there won't be an 'internet' - just millions of stale, abandoned websites all simply redirecting you to their respective Facebook Pages instead. It also wouldn't surprise me if at some point, new phones will be released where the browser app is no longer installed by default, but the Facebook app is. Even if this happened today, most non-technical users wouldn't even notice.
---
[1] Because the lobby is full of adverts from Facebook's business partners and Facebook gets a nice cut if you buy something being advertised.