[danwee]

> literally the threat of the sword

Obviously, we need to find contemporary analogies:

- the other day I opened (manually) a bunch of Linkedin profiles (each in one browser tab). Apparently, Linkedin thought it was a suspicious activity and blocked my account for some time (I don't remember, but in the range of hours). Luckily me, I still got my account... but it would be hard to find jobs and keep working connections without Linkedin. I dodged the sword

I'm sure one can find similar examples (or worse) for all the big companies out there (never heard of "google banned me. help!"?)

[marcusverus]

Being rate-limited by LinkedIn isn't a contemporary analog to being extorted by force. You're choosing to use their service. You can choose to not use it.

The closest contemporary analog to being extorted by force is, of course, our relationship to our governments.

One of the most interesting aspects of libertarian thought is their notion that the liberal revolution (which began in 1776 and spread to Europe in 1789) is not, as we are inclined to think, complete. They argue that it is still in its infancy, and in some ways has regressed. This becomes clear when you consider the number of ways in which our modern governments are similar to those states (some feudal) which existed prior to the onset of the liberal revolution. You can now leave your lord's land without permission... but only if some other lord gives you permission to enter theirs. Our lords take far more of our incomes than was taken in the past (even under feudalism), and just as in the days of old, our lords dole that money out in a way which is best suited to their retention of power. If your entire village (or entire region!) doesn't support the elected lord, and endeavors to create a state of your own with a new lord (perhaps because you have been influenced by dangerous ideas like "[sometimes] it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them") then your lord reserves the right to reestablish the "consent of the governed" by force of arms! The primary difference is that they had no say in who their lord would be, whereas you decide (or, you are at best 120,000,000th of the decider) who yours is (so long as they come from one of the two established factions, of course).

When put in the appropriate context, the use of the term feudalism to refer to LinkedIn seems rather a stretch.

[piva00]

> Being rate-limited by LinkedIn isn't a contemporary analog to being extorted by force. You're choosing to use their service. You can choose to not use it.

If you include network effects, does everyone really have that choice?

For example, I can't choose not to use WhatsApp to keep in touch with my family and friends in Brazil. It's simply not possible because some of them won't use another messaging app, I've tried and they will simply forget it exists because no one else uses Signal there except for me. It forces me into the Meta-world because of that, I'm not really choosing it, they aren't forcing me with violence, it's shadier than that, I simply need to since they've captured so much of the marketshare.

LinkedIn isn't the same, consequences are you might miss some job offers, you will need to find workarounds for recruiters to find you, or for you to find positions, but there are other apps that are definitely on the path of "I can't choose not to participate".

[marcusverus]

> If you include network effects, does everyone really have that choice?

The network effects just increase the value-add of the platform, making foregoing the platform more costly (in terms of unclaimed utility). There is still a choice.

> For example, I can't choose not to use WhatsApp to keep in touch with my family and friends in Brazil. It's simply not possible because some of them won't use another messaging app... I'm not really choosing it

Having a compelling reason to use a service is not remotely the same as being forced to use a service.

> it's shadier than that

High-value-add services are not shadier than violence.

[piva00]

> Having a compelling reason to use a service is not remotely the same as being forced to use a service.

Hence "shadier", violence is not shady, it's pretty in your face, it's shady I'm forced to use an app not by choice but just because such apps have captured enough of the market that there is absolutely no way for a competitor to be a suitable replacement.

Sure, I have the choice to simply lose contact with 50% of my family if I would like to stand up to my principles and cut Meta from my life.

Is that really a choice?