[CogitoCogito]

> The solution is to stay away from it and send a clear signal that Facebook is not the proper channel.

Collective action through the legal system is another legitimate approach. If enough people are unhappy, legislation can force a change.

[rglullis]

> legislation can force a change.

No, the laws for it already exist. The problem is the difficulty to enforce it.

"Legislation" and "regulation" are not magic words.

[CogitoCogito]

I never said they are magic words. And legislation _can_ for change. Of course it requires regulation and everything else. That goes without saying. The fact that laws already exist doesn't mean that better laws that are more easily enforced can't be passed.

Regardless that is almost getting into a semantic discussion. Collective action through _government_ regulation is a perfectly legitimate approach if enough people are unhappy about the status quo.

[rglullis]

Legitimate? Yes.

Effective? Rarely, if ever.

I think that is the main issue here. Big corporations love to keep the meme around that "Government regulation" is a legitimate action, because they know how ineffective it is.

If it were up to them, we might be spend our whole lives trying to craft the perfect law, constantly re-iterating in a game of cat-and-mouse against $current_malpractice_du_jour, but at the end of the day it is all pointless because people are not going to wait and just use Facebook anyway.

[bombcar]

A law targeted at Facebook might work, something like "posts by a business or government entity or non-personal entity" or something *must be publicly available without a login.

A similar policy aimed at ADA requirements for governments, state and local and federal, might also mitigate some of it.