Re:What I Learned When Facebook Disabled My Account (2012)
by curryhowardiso on Thursday May 25, 2017 @07:56AM
(#14416746)
Absolutely - and the argument that "Facebook usage is like common law licenses of invitation onto private property" tacitly assumes that Facebook is like private property, and that the moral justification of "my private property, my rules" is correct.
It's intuitive - I'll give you that - but we need to decide amongst ourselves whether this behaviour is something we want to encourage or discourage into the future.
Re:What I Learned When Facebook Disabled My Account (2012)
by userbinator on Thursday May 25, 2017 @07:46AM
(#14416707)
You can't just hit somebody in the face because they are in your house and the terms on the door clearly says that you can.
This may be worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
Re:What I Learned When Facebook Disabled My Account (2012)
by flexie on Thursday May 25, 2017 @07:58AM
(#14416754)
Note how the conditions for invoking the castle doctrine are set by society, not by the property owner. It's not a method defined within the class. It's a method inherited from the superclass.
Re:What I Learned When Facebook Disabled My Account (2012)
by yequalsx on Thursday May 25, 2017 @07:54AM
(#14416740)
You missed entirely flexie's point. Flexie gave numerous examples of circumstances in which the owner of a private property can not legally do as he/she pleases. Your response is to mention the castle doctrine. What is the purpose of this?
Your response is especially bad because according to the linked article:
"..as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force..."
Note that is says, "in certain circumstances". Flexie wrote that you can't just hit someone in the face in your house. Flexie is correct in this and the castle doctrine in no way disputes this.
Re:What I Learned When Facebook Disabled My Account (2012)
by curryhowardiso on Thursday May 25, 2017 @07:59AM
(#14416760)
I don't believe this answer deserves a downvote.
I think this answer missed a (somewhat) negation in the middle of the parent posts' argument
Landlords cannot just evict renters based on the landlord's own terms of service, not even a renter's non-paying children or girlfriend with whom the landlord didn't contract, and not even the renter himself although the stopped paying: The landlord needs to follow the rules of society, go through a bailiff's court or follow similar strict procedures defined in society to ensure that mandatory law is followed.
Not everybody can set up a medical clinic on their private property, even if they offer their services for free.
TV stations in many European countries can't show hidden ads in programmes and cannot show ads for kids for certain products. Even though the viewers didn't pay. Even though they are free not to watch.
In most places landowners cannot freely decide to do what they want with their land, like building a factory, without taking into consideration zoning laws and without hearing the neighbors or wider community as well.
For millennia, what we today call criminal laws, have applied on private property as well. You can't just hit somebody in the face because they are in your house and the terms on the door clearly says that you can. Think that's ridiculous? Well, it used to be that restaurants in America could chose to serve whites only. It was the choice of the property owner. Until it wasn't. Courts and congress decided that such practices were so despicable that the general interest of non-discrimination outweighed the interest in business owners getting to decide for themselves. Same with businesses hiring men only. Today most of us regard it as obvious that non discrimination laws trump the interest of private owners. A few decades ago, most people thought the owner could choose freely whom to hire.
I hope we will start regulating the new advertising industry comprised of social networks and search engines more tightly.