zlacker

>>benhur+(OP)
It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies. At the very least, companies must be legally required to present you in writing with the so-called violation of terms they're accusing you of, evidence of the violation, and a phone # or other immediate contact so that you can dispute the accusations. It's insane that these basic legal rights don't even exist.

You could of course sue Google, but that's an extremely expensive and time-consuming option, rarely worth it for a mere consumer. Going to court certainly won't make your suspended account become unsuspended any quicker.

>>_qulr+em
> It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies

I get where you're going, but I think far more costly to them and advantageous for us is to simply show them that they are unnecessary.

If we can drop them so easily, they can't pull stuff like this anymore. It is possible to drop Google and Facebook.

They do this stuff because people _need_ them and they know that people won't just drop them en mass.

>>nvahal+8v
Oh yeah, far more easy than the government taking regulatory action is coordinating a massive consumer choice boycott.

Sometimes, it is so abundantly clear to me that this site is full of former teenage libertarians who grew up and still haven't shed all of those ideals.

>>whimsi+Y31
If all of the latest Facebook news can get my family to start questioning their usage/dependency on Facebook—I think it's fairly possible.

There have been a number of really great projects coming through HN and other sites recently that are aimed at solving some problem that people on Facebook have: photo sharing, event planning, etc.

Discoverability is really the only problem left.