Brilliant retort. Next you'll compare Twitter to health insurance I bet.
> If you're incapable of understanding the comparison, please don't embarrass yourself and stop shouting.
I understand the comparison just fine, what's embarrassing is the absurdity of the comparison. The burden of proof is on you to explain why a fundamental lynchpin of our economy for 150 years is comparable in necessity to a single social media website.
The comparison is obvious but I'll spell it out for you. You claimed that nobody needs Facebook, providing the reasons:
1. Facebook is not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation. This argument just doesn't make sense.
2. Facebook is not necessary because it's correlated with worse mental health. Even if we assume that there is indeed a correlation and it's Facebook that tends to cause bad mental health, it does not mean that Facebook is bad for the mental health of everyone in every situation.
3. Or do you have higher standards for "need"? If by "need" you mean that it's impossible to live without Facebook: Same for electricity. If you just mean that it doesn't cross your personal threshold of what constitutes "need", then you're of course right, but why should anyone care?
4. Another way to understand your post is that Facebook is not necessary (in general, not for every single human) because it tends to worsen mental health. That would mean that if (strict) Amish have better mental health than us, electricity is not critical. But it is.
> Facebook is not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation
I didn't say it's not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation, I described its private ownership status to emphasize the fact that Facebook is private property that users don't pay for, not something that anyone is entitled to use. I'll accept that my wording did not communicate that idea clearly.
> Even if we assume that there is indeed a correlation and it's Facebook that tends to cause bad mental health, it does not mean that Facebook is bad for the mental health of everyone in every situation.
You are correct. My point is to illustrate the commonly accepted understanding within our society that time spent on social media is generally considered unproductive and correlates (not necessarily causes) mental health problems; your reasoning is akin to suggesting that Fortnite is a necessity because its the most popular online game in the world. It's not.
> Or do you have higher standards for "need"? If by "need" you mean that it's impossible to live without Facebook: Same for electricity. If you just mean that it doesn't cross your personal threshold of what constitutes "need", then you're of course right, but why should anyone care?
Sigh. So you really are going to make me explain why "electricity" is a need but "Facebook" isn't. I'll use the same example I used down thread. If you were to shut down the electrical grid tomorrow, hundreds of thousands would be dead within 24 hours, if you were to shut off Facebook tomorrow, it would be a moderate inconvenience to a lot of people but everyone would survive and most would move on within a month. That's why one is a "need" (electricity) and the other isn't (social media website).
> I didn't say it's not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation, I described its private ownership status to emphasize the fact that Facebook is private property that users don't pay for, not something that anyone is entitled to use. I'll accept that my wording did not communicate that idea clearly.
Okay. But being necessary and being private property are two independent properties. Which is a problem because it means that some people must use something they aren't allowed to use.
> If you were to shut down the electrical grid tomorrow, hundreds of thousands would be dead within 24 hours, if you were to shut off Facebook tomorrow, it would be a moderate inconvenience to a lot of people but everyone would survive and most would move on within a month.
I basically agree. Society needs the services Facebook provides. But it does not need Facebook because it could trivially shut it down and use a replacement instead.
But individuals can't. When they need a communications platform, they need the communications platform other people use. Which is Facebook.
I'd love to shut down Facebook, but unfortunately, I can't.
> Okay. But being necessary and being private property are two independent properties. Which is a problem because it means that some people must use something they aren't allowed to use.
Well the crux of my argument is that they don't need Facebook, thus it is not a problem. Not having access to Facebook might be very inconvenient, but nobody has a right to convenience. At the end of the day you can't prevent Facebook from regulating the use of its own private property. Facebook users don't pay fees to keep the network running so I can't fathom any sane regulation that could prevent Facebook from arbitrarily limiting user access to their network except where it relates to the user's control of their own personal data.
> individuals can't. When they need a communications platform, they need the communications platform other people use. Which is Facebook.
Or GSM, or SMS, or Email, or iMessage, or Snapchat, or WhatsApp, or Skype, or Telegram, or KiK, or Hangouts, or Slack, or Discord, or IRC or... you get the point. The idea that Facebook is the only option for communication is very clearly not true.
> Well the crux of my argument is that they don't need Facebook, thus it is not a problem.
2.3 billion people use Facebook. Many of them say they need Facebook. Many of them use Facebook even though they don't like it -- why would someone do that unless they must? Your claim that no one needs Facebook is not just wrong, it's absurd.
> Not having access to Facebook might be very inconvenient, but nobody has a right to convenience. At the end of the day you can't prevent Facebook from regulating the use of its own private property.
Something doesn't have to be a right to be desirable. And nobody has a right to private property.
> Facebook users don't pay fees to keep the network running so I can't fathom any sane regulation that could prevent Facebook from arbitrarily limiting user access to their network except where it relates to the user's control of their own personal data.
I can't fathom any regulation more insane than letting His Autocratic Majesty Mark "Dumb Fucks" I. of Zuckerberg do whatever he wants with his kingdom.
> The idea that Facebook is the only option for communication is very clearly not true.
Sometimes it is and you don't have a choice. Thus whether Facebook is a monopoly is merely a semantic question: The issue with monopolies is that individuals cannot chose. The issue with Facebook is the same, so it should be treated the same.
A big scary number, but you haven't demonstrated the logical connection between "very popular" and "necessity".
> Many of them say they need Facebook
So what?
> Many of them use Facebook even though they don't like it -- why would someone do that unless they must
This argument doesn't make sense. There are many things in life that one does not need to do, and one does not want to do, but one does anyway because it serves some other purpose. I don't need to wash the dishes, I don't want to wash the dishes, but I still do it because I prefer not to generate a trash-pile of disposable plates and utensil with every meal.
> Something doesn't have to be a right to be desirable
What's your point? Convenience is obviously desirable but it's not something society owes you.
> And nobody has a right to private property.
We can agree to disagree on the value of property rights but it's a legally recognized right even if you don't personally recognize it.
> letting His Autocratic Majesty Mark "Dumb Fucks" I. of Zuckerberg do whatever he wants.
I am just going to ignore this obvious strawman argument.
> The issue with monopolies is that individuals cannot chose.
But they can choose. There are hundreds of choices. The argument that not all social networks contain all people does not demonstrate that Facebook is a monopoly. If you have a hypothetical acquaintance who doesn't have a phone or an email and only uses Facebook to communicate that is their prerogative and has absolutely nothing to do with Facebook. That scenario would be identical on literally any platform regardless of how many total users are on the platform.
> A big scary number, but you haven't demonstrated the logical connection between "very popular" and "necessity".
Which is why I didn't stop writing after those 5 words.
> So what?
Have you ever considered that other people may know more about their own lives than you do?
> What's your point? Convenience is obviously desirable but it's not something society owes you.
It's a factor when considering what to do with Facebook.
> I don't want to wash the dishes, but I still do it because I prefer not to generate a trash-pile of disposable plates and utensil with every meal.
That means you need to wash the dishes. If we restrict "need" to things where you have no choice, all you need to do is breathe. I don't want to eat, but I still do it because I prefer not to starve.
> it's a legally recognized right
True, but not an argument.
> The argument that not all social networks contain all people does not demonstrate that Facebook is a monopoly.
> Which is why I didn't stop writing after those 5 words.
I don't see that explanation anywhere. Something being popular does not mean you need it; that should be pretty obvious. If you need something then it is necessary regardless of how popular it is.
> Have you ever considered that other people may know more about their own lives than you do?
That's a nice platitude but not an explanation for why someone saying they need something means that they actually need it. A pothead might claim to need weed but that doesn't mean society should have an obligation to accommodate him based on the justification that "people may know more about their own lives than you do"
> It's a factor when considering what to do with Facebook.
It's not a factor because convenience is not something you are owed.
> That means you need to wash the dishes. If we restrict "need" to things where you have no choice, all you need to do is breathe. I don't want to eat, but I still do it because I prefer not to starve.
Damn that is some disingenuous semantic foolishness. I don't need to do the dishes because I could buy a box of paper plates instead which is a decision that will not at all impact my health or livelihood. I need to eat because the needs that underpin survival are the default assumptions made by an intellectually honest individual when the term "need" is used. When I say need I mean a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism.
> True, but not an argument.
So what are you saying? An individual's right to access Facebook is more fundamental than Facebook's right to operate their computers in a manner that is consistent with their prerogatives?
If you don't see an explanation anywhere, it's because you don't want to see it. I have written like half a dozen.
> That's a nice platitude but not an explanation for why someone saying they need something means that they actually need it.
Ditto
> It's not a factor because convenience is not something you are owed.
Non sequitur
> I need to eat because the needs that underpin survival are the default assumptions made by an intellectually honest individual when the term "need" is used. When I say need I mean a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism.
That's two contradictory definitions, survival and well-being is not the same. Even under this definition, you still haven't provided the extraordinary proof necessary for the extraordinary claim that nobody needs Facebook. You've merely asserted it – somehow believing that your assertions about the lifes of people you don't know are more accurate than what these people believe.
> An individual's right to access Facebook is more fundamental than Facebook's right to operate their computers in a manner that is consistent with their prerogatives?
Facebook does not have any rights to begin with. Like all companies, its only legitimate purpose is to serve the public – which is why the convenience of the many trumps the desire of one Mr. Zuckerberg to control Facebook.
Just like electricity, Facebook is an enabler of business, just on a higher level. That being said, I don't believe it's as important, just that some kind of a comparison can be made.
The reason I think it is important is that FB and a few other websites are the new public square and are a major driver of social trends. Curation of this platform could be what kills them, if some people realise they can only speak corporate-friendly speech.
> That being said, I don't believe it's as important, just that some kind of a comparison can be made..
"Some kind of comparison" can be made between literally any two things; that is not in dispute. When I say "they cannot be compared" I don't mean that they are literally incomparable, I mean that the comparison is wildly inapt because the two things are so fundamentally different in terms of value, scale and necessity.
> FB and a few other websites are the new public square and are a major driver of social trends.
FB is not a public square, it's a publishing platform exclusively owned and funded by a corporation. Just because Facebook is popular doesn't mean it's a public square. Don't misunderstand, I definitely believe that Facebook needs to be regulated (primarily around privacy, tracking, and user-data rights), but not on the basis that people need to use or are entitled to use Facebook; this is demonstrably false. If you were to shut down the electrical grid tomorrow, hundreds of thousands would be dead within 24 hours, if you were to shut off Facebook tomorrow, it would be a moderate inconvenience to a lot of people but everyone would survive and most would move on within a month.
> a major driver of social trend
So is HBO; just because a company wields powerful social influence doesn't mean we need to regulate their platform.
> Curation of this platform could be what kills them, if some people realise they can only speak corporate-friendly speech.
So let them die? Facebook is a business and if they make bad business decisions they should feel the consequences. What's the problem?
Also, claiming that electricity is "critical" is delusional because agriculture is even more important.