| > For Facebook you only need an account to see content that the user / page has deemed not public. Or want to view public pages without them being covered by some obnoxious "See more of PAGE by logging in." Yes, it's the account owner's fault for using Facebook in the first place. But they're likely always logged in, and so are most of their visitors, so they're only marginally aware such problems even exist. Blame that can be squarely placed at Facebook is exploiting such gaps in knowledge from their users to pressure non-users into signing up. > This is no different than every other site out there. This is vastly different from almost every other site out there, except for a few big players. The Internet is still a huge place, at least for the time being. Facebook is a major erosive force on the Internet as it tries to quietly subsume and privatise it, and using it to publish content on is contributing to the demise of one of the few globe-spanning projects our species ever managed to get right. |
> . . . pressure non-users into signing up.
These days you'll see similar examples by visiting any forum. Want to see some code, or a link someone posted? Sorry! You have to login or register.
> This is vastly different . . .
OK, OK. I'm sorry. This is most certainly, however, similar to any other website out there that uses real identity; don't let me get everything muddied by trying to compare real identity web to the anonymous web.
> Facebook is a . . .
Lol? I don't even. There's so many die-hard Facebook haters out there. Go build open source applications that do what Facebook is offering and does it better and before you know it the company should be gone. I'm solely basing this on the amount of comments I see for people coming out against Facebook, rather than ever for it (or even just playing devil's advocate). It seems to always be a circle jerk.