[threepio]

This argument against "the proliferation of platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Medium, Google and many others" would be more persuasive if the surrounding page weren't embroidered with share buttons from Twitter, Facebook, and many others.

[enos_feedler]

Anti-platform web pages should all join hands as a webring.

[stOneskull]

Everyone should have a webpage and yeah, 'friend' other webpages.

[bnegreve]

By this logic, no one should ever publish anything criticizing Facebook on Facebook, and it becomes impossible for the article to reach its targeted audience (people using Facebook).

[rchaud]

How so? What is preventing the user from copying the URL and posting it on Facebook if they choose to?

The share buttons load trackers from the social network sites that follow your activity around said site. It is not there for the user's convenience at all.

[sjy]

Facebook users are perfectly capable of reading websites and sharing them on Facebook using a URL. It’s not necessary for bloggers to embed Facebook’s code and logo on their website to enable this.

[loulouxiv]

Sadly, a vast majority of Facebook users have know idea of what an URL is. Big tech is even doing everything it can to make/keep people ignorant of what an URL is, like Google reformatting its result page to make URLs look like breadcrumbs, or Safari and Chrome hiding more and more of the url in the address bar...

[rchaud]

But in that case, chances are they arrived at the article from a link posted on Facebook. So they wouldn't need to click the share button on the site if they wanted to share it.

[zem]

that's about as logical as 'haha you are ranting against capitalism but you are posting from your iphone!'. twitter, facebook, etc. are what we have now; they're where people are reading, and they are where the writer needs to share their work if they want it widely disseminated. that does not mean they are happy with the current state of affairs or that they would not like to see them replaced with a more open-web-based ecosystem.

[zelphirkalt]

What a good argument to place FB's instruments of tracking on the website.

That's already an ethically questionable action.

[megous]

I don't see any tracking code. (no code from FB's domains, just some wordpress social share widget where if you don't click anything, the respective social platform is not contacted).

[robbintt]

You are attempting to use a fallacy called an "Ad Hominem".

https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/criticalthinking/six%2...

[at_a_remove]

If you really care that much about fallacies, you should at least pick the correct one. In this case, what you were really looking for is "Tu quoque."

Note: I have provided an example by saying this.

[RubenvanE]

You're right, but technically tu quogue is a type of ad hominem attack. So OP used an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy to discredit the author.

Even though this might not be the strongest argument from a purely logic point of view, it can still be a valid critique on the author.

[saagarjha]

I think the fallacies list needs an addition for “wrongly accusing others of logical fallacies and linking it in your response”.

[augustt]

In real life, perhaps unlike debate camp, having your actions speak for themselves does actually matter.

[ddrt]

I believe they successfully completed the attempt by the time you came along.

[jchw]

This user is of the opinion that the site's behavior is hypocritical and therefore it makes their argument less persuasive. It's their opinion. Putting aside questions of whether invoking logical fallacies here makes sense, it is unclear to me what invoking fallacies can possibly add to this conversation.