Facebook is a utility; utilities get regulated
zephoria.org
zephoria.org
To say that any company that has a dominant market share of a product category or service that people depend upon is a public utility would have meant, over the years, that IBM (mainframes), Microsoft (desktop computers), Apple (digital music players), and many other companies should have been or should be treated as targets for regulation. Public utility regulation means setting tariffs that regulate pricing, requiring the regulated companies to file formal applications and to provide justifications for requesting pricing increases, and setting detailed rules and regulations about making sure all customers have reasonable access to the service, etc. These various concepts make perfect sense for a monopoly that provides electricity, water, or some such thing to the public at large; they make no sense whatever outside that context.
I interpret this piece as saying, in effect, that many people use Facebook in their daily lives and that FB is asking for it if it goes about tricking and deceiving its users with respect to the use of their data. That is a fair point, and who knows what the legal ramifications will be if FB continues to abuse the trust of their users. That said, it does not really fit to try to classify FB as some sort of public utility - perhaps rhetorically, for effect, but certainly not legally.
I don't agree about the "natural monopoly" reasoning. Companies are dominant because they deliver a better value proposition. And if they stop, as they often do, competitors creep in and take away their customers. Except where the government gets involved to establish a legal regulated monopoly. Then the competition is all over and then nothing improves after that.
We went through this with package delivery, phone service, and airlines with monopolies on specific routes. All significantly improved after competition was reintroduced. Competition is the ultimate regulator.
And facebook has plenty of competition.
the reason utilities are regulated, as I understand it, is that it costs a lot to switch. there's a lot of infrastructure and digging involved.
but the last time I switched social networks, I don't think there was much digging involved. and I don't think my neighbors were affected
even if something is regulated, coercive regulation is not necessarily justified. people in an area or building can own their local infrastructure together and bargain with competing providers. and such arrangements would be very common if government weren't handing out monopolies
seriously, if you're going to lose them if you leave facebook, they may not actually be your friends.
and haven't we all been through this before? I do recall leaving friendster for myspace and then myspace for facebook. I can't recall thinking that the government should have stopped that from from happening.
which is the real reason for regulation/monopoly. keeping those pesky competitors out of the picture while pretending its to protect the customers.
Anyway, I don't care, because I don't use Facebook. But a lot of people are being strung along in ways they don't understand, and that's generally a bad thing. (It's also bad for me -- if everyone is willing to give up their privacy in exchange for pictures of their friends drinking beer, it means it will become socially unacceptable for other people to want privacy. And that is bad for me -- someone who does want privacy.)
Arguments that rely on 'it's free' are weak.
Just because much of the web is free, with it's low running costs, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be regulated. News sites are covered by plenty of regulation just because they originally came out of print media.
Although I agree calling it a utility is wrong to try and convince people it should be regulated.
It's only a matter of time before facebook gets thwacked with regulation over here in the EU. Not because it's a utility but because it can cause so much social harm with its desire to make money. The bait and switch going on at facebook should definitely be stopped.
This is a pretty big assumption. Care to cite it?
(And sure, you can say they consented when they signed up for Facebook and didn't opt out of whatever you're supposed to opt out. Doesn't mean they aren't embarrassed.)
There are 25 hits for rectal surgery since April 27. Most of them are innocuous.
Try searching for "slept with" or something more common.
No incriminating results I could find. (This search has a much higher turnover, so the results you see will be different from mine.)
My point stands: You're making accusations without solid evidence. Neither the "rectal surgery" search nor the "slept with" search prove that "a lot of people are being strung along in ways they don't understand".
{
"id": "709527250_127568693924655",
"from": {
"name": "Heather Smith Kiessling",
"id": "709527250"
},
"message": "never going home to doug he is nothing more than a wife beating raping cheeting asshole who fucked my gay friend in the same bed he slept with me in. plus kept my dildo and wouldnt let me have it hhhhmmm yeah wonder where he sticking that at? sry i ever snuck you in to justin an megs house this last tuseday and fucked you and let you tell me you wanted me to have you baby.",
"type": "status",
"created_time": "2010-05-16T05:15:18+0000",
"updated_time": "2010-05-16T05:15:31+0000"
},They stole that from FilePile (which was an exclusive private imageboard-like community for dot-com yuppies)
Anyone is free to launch an alternative and compete with FB as FB did with MySpace.