American government is something unique. The Constitution provides a framework for operation, and the Bill of Rights restricts the government from alienating our implied/explicit rights. Originally the federal government was meant to be small, while the states were supposed to manage civil laws (see A9/A10). Since 9/11, I've seen insane power grabs at the federal level, in what I see as an attempt to get citizens accustomed to having their rights washed away (see Patriot Act, NDAA, TSA, NSA hacking tools, etc...).

Put simply, I personally don't trust the American government at the federal level, and it's hard to find reasons why anyone should. People who restrain criticisms of the feds often like to pretend that all they need to do to prevent corruption is get into office any make the changes we want. Unfortunately that's extremely naive and huge waste of effort, especially when Congress has no term limits. I believe the only way to reign in federal abuse is by taking its power away.

My point here is that the government has a long track record for abuse at the highest degree, quite literally, and giving them my most personal and private data is terrifying. The problem is that we can't change governments on a whim, thus if we have a crappy one, we have to deal with it. In a free market however, if a corporation is caught with abuses, we can bury them in court and move to a competitor.

Yes, the free market is making it very easy to move away from Facebook.

You are not compelled by law to use it. You may be addicted but it is a different problem. So the short answer is it just you that makes it difficult.

> You may be addicted but it is a different problem.

Not everyone is addicted, but rather Facebook has become arguably necessary because of its network effect.

Facebook has become the de facto standard of communication in some institutions. For example, in some universities, important notices on due dates or class cancellations is done solely through Facebook. One may be very heavily pressured to use it.

The original article points out that you don't even have to use Facebook yourself for someone else to put your data there.

That's true, and I'm not sure what rights Americans have in this case, it's hard to tell. Could claim defamation possibly, or impersonation?

The usual one that's claimed it that it's facebook's free speech. Can't defame someone with unpublished, accurate information ..

I suppose they do have a right to express what they observe.

Yeah, and kids aren't compelled by law to smoke. If you think that Facebook addiction is the result of human weakness, you need to wake up. Facebook has methodically exploited human psychology for years to cultivate addiction. Check out Roger McNamee's new book.

By the way, I don't have a Facebook account.

Is this sarcasm? Because I'm fine without Facebook and there are plenty of social media options.

Yes, it was sarcasm. They're more entrenched than you'd like to admit. They have a monopoly on social networking, they control a huge portion of digital advertising, and together with Google, they've bought a huge swath of Washington D.C. (see McNamee's new book). The results aren't surprising: regular abuse of customers, exploitation of human psychology to cultivate addiction, the peddling of a harmful product to minors. They're a consolidated version of the cigarette industry. Free markets ain't working—we antitrust action and regulation.