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.

>>vkou+1O1
Oh if you think running water is important, try growing up in a desert. You will quickly realize still water is enough. WTF is this line of logic?

>>newswa+tO1
1. I'm not sure you understand what running water means. It's not water that flows down a river, it's water that comes from a tap. The whole point of running water is that a utility delivers it to your home, regardless of whether or not your town is in a rain forest, or the middle of a desert.

2. You'll die in three days without water. You'll probably be healthier if you spent three days without Facebook.

3. I can't collect water for myself where I live. I suppose I could walk down to the lake, and manually bring up a few buckets of water, but it won't be safe for me to drink. I suppose I can also go buy bottled water, at a ~million-percent markup. There is no economic alternative for me to get water, other than through the water pipes laid to my apartment, by my water utility. I am a completely captive customer for my utility. My water utility has monopoly control of special-purpose one-of-a-kind infrastructure that is used to deliver water to my apartment. That is why my utility is regulated.

4. Unlike with my tap water, there are plenty of functioning alternatives to... Whatever it is that Facebook does for me. If Facebook shut down tomorrow, my life would be mildly disrupted for a week or two, and then would go on with little change.

On the hierarchy of needs, we have air at the top, followed closely by water, shelter, and food, followed at some distance by electricity, and way down the street, that we can barely make out, by grabbing a pair of binoculars, we will see 'Facebook'.

It's just not that important.