[TomMarius]

I said Facebook and Google would turn off their websites - they have zero obligation to keep it running - not that people would like them to breach their privacy and start rioting for that.

I think you don't realize how many people absolutely depend on social media, how many companies are built on income allowed by advertising, etc. Even music events are organized through Facebook around me!

And still, all Facebook and Google needs to do is remind the politicians who gets their advertising done.

[afterburner]

> zero obligation

Except to those pesky shareholders. Which includes employees. Peoples' wealth is tied up in those stocks.

But regardless... maybe try email or something. The internet existed before Google and Facebook. Plenty of competitors would rise to the top in the extremely unlikely event Google and Facebook shut down.

[TomMarius]

You don't need to tell me, I am on HN with you. It's the people out of HN that I am talking about, and they often have no idea Facebook is in fact not the internet. I am not kidding - I used to be a computer teacher for adults (as in "what is mouse?"). Facebook is trying to make it seem so really hard. BTW people today often don't even have email or know how to use it correctly - you can use your phone number for FB/Instagram/Whatsapp, so why bother.

> Except to those pesky shareholders. Which includes employees. Peoples' wealth is tied up in those stocks.

That stock is dead anyways if they forbid ad targeting. And no, the company does not have any such obligation to its shareholders - it only has to make profit for its shareholders as best as it can, which may very well include turning the site off for a few days (the public/gov does not need to know for how long it is turned off and/or whether indefinitely).

[afterburner]

> That stock is dead anyways if they forbid ad targeting

No, advertising can exist very easily without targeting. It's still advertising, and people still pay for it.

> And no, the company does not have any such obligation to its shareholders

You're ignoring that some of the people with the most stock are those in charge of the company. They'd be destroying their own wealth by "shutting down the site".

[TomMarius]

Well, it worked out for Google News, so why not for ad targeting?

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/25/tech/google-france-copyri...

> No, advertising can exist very easily without targeting. It's still advertising, and people still pay for it.

Have you tried advertising your product on such platforms? It just does not work if you're not a huge brand name with a deep pocket.

> You're ignoring that some of the people with the most stock are those in charge of the company. They'd be destroying their own wealth by "shutting down the site".

Actually that's the basis for my argument. That's why they might want to go "on a strike" for a few days - if it succeeds, it would massively increase their profits compared to the non-ad targeting version of the company, while missing only a few days of revenue if not successful.