> Now, Facebook follows the steps that most tyrants do, quietly moving from sham elections to an official policy that users will have no vote in site governance.
When I read this my first thought went to the ridiculousness of comparing Facebook to a dictator. But it shows that Anil sees Facebook as almost necessary infrastructure. Not using Facebook is not a realistic possibility. Instead we must hope against hope that they will right their tyrannical ways.
Frankly I'm not holding my breath, but Anil has reach so maybe something good could come out of it.
Attempts to "cure" Facebook sound like attempts to tame poisonous snakes not to bite when they feed. It simply sounds like nonsense to me. Facebook from the start was for-profit thing directed by its owners, and never had any "users governance". If someone wants "for people, by the people" - let them use Diaspora*, Friendica or whatever else emerges on the horizon to fulfill that purpose. But if someone is using Facebook, they shouldn't complain that it doesn't respect its own users. That's the way it was built from the ground up.
If he really thinks that, he needs to take a serious step back. This is just ridiculous.
Funny, my life still seems pretty realistic since I deleted my account. Maybe more so.
More on the subj itself - I'm not sure really what the author expected from FB. They don't care about users' privacy - period. I.e. they don't respect their users. If you don't appreciate it - quit using Facebook and use privacy respecting social networks.