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
> It is possible to drop Google and Facebook.

Its also possible to live without electricity and running water. This disproportionate power model doesn't work there because some people implemented regulations on them. I am beginning to suspect we need similar laws for this.

>>newswa+5L
If you are equating a world without Facebook to a world without running water, you need to spend a week camping, where you leave your phone at home.

You'll very quickly discover why they are not at all alike.