So Facebook - who controls your feed (and made said change) now wants to say that their right to prioritize (based on money) what stuff goes on your feed shouldn't be questioned?

> their right to prioritize (based on money) what stuff goes on your feed

It's not your feed, it's their feed; you're just the person eating it.

Thank you...

Everyone seems to be forgetting that this is a 100% opt-in service. Why do we get to say what FB is obligated to do and to what standards they have to keep their website at?

Well, when it establishes a dominant position in the market using tactics that are no longer allowed, we do get a right to say that they should be broken up, or forced to start from scratch without their user data.

My own two cents is that Facebook should be dismantled to restore competition, then be allowed to do whatever it wants.

Facebook should be dismantled because they effectively broke democracy.

From the earliest of its beginnings, one of the greatest flaws of democracy was masses being susceptible to manipulation, and Facebook massively amplified this. It has been repeatedly and reliably used for manipulation of voters with unprecedented effectiveness and on an unprecedented scale.

Trump and Brexit showed that even the oldest and most mature democracies are not impervious to such manipulation.

I was shocked how Facebook's Libra initiative quickly detracted people: all of a sudden, we're all discussing whether they should be allowed to run crypto currency, and nobody is talking about how they broke democracy. Almost as if the whole Libra thing is a giant distraction...

Because Facebook occupies a nearly-monopolistic position that has somewhat replaced the public square in modern life. It's not just any other service, anymore; it's far bigger and needs to be legislated upon as such.

Things stop being opt-in when too many people start using them. There's a point where private platforms become so big they begin to function as public platforms. At that point, not opting in becomes tantamount to becoming an off-grid prepper, or religious hermit. Participating in society is technically opt-in as well, but because it is tied into all parts of life, not opting in requires you to opt out.

Because that is what they advertize themselves as (connecting with people and seeing what they post), they should be held to the image they project.

The truth is they let you see most of your friends' and family's posts, but pretty much any commercial or non-profit's post is held for ransom. If you "like" a local band or want to hear from the local gardening club, they will be encouraged to pay to "boost" their posts to you.

If fb had to say "you will see the posts from your connections based on how much they pay us," up front when registering and in all their ads (like the fast-talking disclosures in US drug advertizing), then people would have a more accurate view of the service they are using. Of course, long privacy disclosures would be necessary too.

I would argue facebook isn't a 100% opt in service at all. When political advertising on facebook won Trump the election, that changed the global landscape for everyone, regardless whether they were on facebook or not. It's like saying the automotive industry or the oil industry are a 100% opt in service, so why regulate them either? Facebook has as much of a tailpipe as any other commercial enterprise with effects felt by everyone.

It's not going to show up in everyone's feed if you pay either. You're just talking degrees of exposure. Getting to 100% of eyeballs vs. 80% or 10% is arbitrary.