[psv1]

The comparison to oil isn't apt at all. Stopping oil use is next to impossible because it's a part of almost every mode of transportation and everything that's made out of plastic. And even if you decide to abandon your life and live naked in the woods, your individual contribution will be minimal. On the other hand, you can delete your Facebook right now with minimal consequences to your quality of life and some very likely upsides. And the network effects work in the other direction too - you disappear from the list of friends of everyone you're connected to.

I guess my overall point is that when it comes to Facebook, people have a lot more choice than you seem to be suggesting.

[svantana]

The analogy is not about the difficulty of quitting, but about externalized costs. Quitting oil won't improve your life in any way, and if you look at the lists of reasons to quit fb, most of them are not of individual concern. Just like climate change, they are collective problems. Asking people to change their habits to improve society almost never works. Taxes and regulation work.

[psv1]

> if you look at the lists of reasons to quit fb, most of them are not of individual concern.

Some of the main reasons like privacy and mental health are of individual concern. I'm not arguing against regulation for oil or Facebook, just pointing out that the incentives are very different on an individual level.