|
> They can opt out, by not participating with the site The definition of social media under the legislation is essentially any form of digital communication that allows two or more people to communicate, as decided by the minister. > No one is mandated to use social media OK, I'll bite. What if you want to join an interest group (crafts, technical, political etc) that organises meetings digitally on a social media site? Sure, you have the choice to not use a social media website, and if you do, in all likelihood not join your choice of interest group. The point is that Meta long used unfair and anti-competitive means to corner the market, and obviously not to interoperate so that it is difficult for people to leave. This might surprise you but the relationship between platforms and users is usually coerced and not really consensual. If you do not find yourself in this position, good for you. I'm a very firm believer that anti-competitive social media companies should be regulated in positive ways, like forcing interoperability and forcing companies to making algorithmic content opt-in. > if you are on social media platforms with algo feeds, you are signalling that this works for you Yeah except people are usually on those platforms for many reasons, like access to group chats and messages, as the platforms have a wide reach. A lot of people become outcasts by quitting social media, myself included, because our friends choose to continue to use it. |
I will say there are many ways to mitigate without leaving entirely, but it will be up to one's own discipline to disengage from the platform and manage your own behaviour while you visit.