[BlackDeath3]

Personally, I'd really not like to see a precedent set for a company entering a market, doing very well, and then being legally compelled to provide their product as some sort of legal right to an entire population. It might be a different story if said company is employing anti-competitive practices, but telling somebody that they're now legally obligated to serve a community because they're just too good at what they do, or so popular that nobody else can best them, seems a little too authoritarian for my taste.

[jkaplowitz]

Oh, they're allowed to withdraw from the market, or decouple the privacy-invasive bits and find a way to make that work financially when users don't opt in to those. Nobody's forcing them to serve Europe if they insist on being this awful regarding mandatory tracking. They're free to allow space for a competitor to grow with a different attitude toward privacy.

[BlackDeath3]

Right, I'm not talking about withdrawing from the market, I'm talking about remaining in the market and being allowed, as a private company providing a private service, to freely associate.

I have no qualms with a competitor starting up to serve those denied by Facebook, but let's not muddy the water by equivocating a monopoly as a result of anti-competitive practices with one that forms simply because nobody wants to use anything else.

[jkaplowitz]

Restrictions on how private parties can provide a private service are ubiquitous in every market. In the US, home-cooked meal startups get shut down because their uninspected kitchen doesn't meet commercial standards. In Ethiopia, you need a local entity with an IT license (seriously) to import a Dell server that you've already purchased. In Canada, you can't agree to an employment contract that allows for zero-notice zero-compensation firing when you didn't do something extreme like steal. Etc.

I don't think most of the people who find Facebook convenient for coordinating groups actually choose the tracking knowingly and willingly (at best begrudgingly), nor do they choose to exclude the people who object more proactively to those things even when that's the effect.

Society's legislative and regulatory choices have a valid role to fix negative externalities of what economic actors would otherwise naturally do. Natural monopolies/oligopolies like electric companies, highway operators, and Facebook are all worth regulating for roughly the same reasons - even according to Orthodox free-market undergraduate microeconomics 101.

[BlackDeath3]

> Restrictions on how private parties can provide a private service are ubiquitous in every market...

I'm speaking more about "ought" than "is" here. I don't see any reason why Facebook should have to choose between serving everybody, regardless of the regulatory burden that it places on them, and taking a hike from the global market entirely. I'm not saying that they won't be forced to do so anyway.

> ...I don't think most of the people who find Facebook convenient for coordinating groups actually choose the tracking knowingly and willingly (at best begrudgingly)...

And yet, they've probably chosen it all the same. In the hypothetical scenario where somebody has a metaphorical (or literal) gun to somebody's head, forcing them to use Facebook, I don't see how Facebook themselves can be blamed for this, and simply chalking this sort of thing up as a "negative externality" and saddling Facebook with the burden seems to be weaselly way of making Facebook to the will of somebody who just can't bear to give it up.

You can't always get what you want. Some of us would do well to internalize this a bit.