> I'm saying if users use Facebook, regulations should be in place to dictate to Facebook how those users should be treated.

As much as I hate what Facebook is doing, I don't think this is anywhere near the right answer. Besides, do you really think governments want to see less information collected, when having that information makes it so convenient for them to obtain?

> As much as I hate what Facebook is doing, I don't think this is anywhere near the right answer.

That's how regulations work. You dictate to a private business its responsibilities to its customers or users. I don't understand why that isn't the right answer (although Europe seems to do far better about this than the US).

> Besides, do you really think governments want to see less information collected, when having that information makes it so convenient for them to obtain?

This is a tired argument. The government is huge. Not every department is the NSA, nor is every department the FTC or FCC.

> That's how regulations work. You dictate to a private business its responsibilities to its customers or users. I don't understand why that isn't the right answer (although Europe seems to do far better about this than the US).

You should, at the very least, already know that this is not a universally held position, but rather one that many people oppose as vigorously as you support it. Without descending into politics, suffice it to say that doing so has no particular guarantee of solving more problems than it creates. Quite apart from the people who work at and run Facebook having rights, too.

People use Facebook voluntarily. "Facebook but not evil" is a viable business model.

People use lots of businesses voluntarily. We still regulate them. That's probably not going away.

Well, governments gave us TOR. So just because some parts of government(s) want to listen in, record and have available all the things -- this isn't universal.

Thank you for the clarification. But, you're still sort of implying that it's an entitlement by suggesting that they be regulated, and that's what I was keying on.

Because the choice exists to either accept their terms and use it or reject their terms and not use it. But, what you are saying is that you reject their terms but, rather than disengage, you insist on using it, but believe the government should forcibly change those terms to your satisfaction.

BTW, they are actually regulated to some extent. Among other things, they spell out what they will and won't do. If they renege, then there are civil and possibly criminal remedies available.

> Because the choice exists to either accept their terms and use them or reject their terms and not use them. But, what you are saying is that you reject their terms but, rather than disengage, you insist on using it, but believe the government should forcibly change those terms to your satisfaction.

How is this any different than unenforceable EULAs or employment contracts that overreach? You can ask me to sign something that violates the law; I can still use your service or become employed by you; that does not remove my protections granted under the law, but nullifies the parts of your contract or agreement that are unlawful.

But, no one is denying users access to the courts to test the enforceability of FB agreements. On the contrary, I am saying that it is precisely a remedy that is available to them if that is the question.

But, in most cases, those who demand regulation or otherwise take umbrage with FB's practices in the current context are not questioning the legality of their terms, etc. Instead, they are asking, for instance, that the government proactively force FB to change practices with which they do not agree, irrespective of any legal tests.

The article itself literally speaks to people being endangered by a FB policy. All of this begs the question: at what point is it simply not worth it? It's nearly satire that people believe FB to be so critical that not even personal endangerment will deter them from using it.

Using FB is neither a requirement for survival, nor a fundamental human right. If their policies are endangering your life or simply not agreeable, then there's no need to launch a crusade. Just sign out.