A big scary number, but you haven't demonstrated the logical connection between "very popular" and "necessity".
> Many of them say they need Facebook
So what?
> Many of them use Facebook even though they don't like it -- why would someone do that unless they must
This argument doesn't make sense. There are many things in life that one does not need to do, and one does not want to do, but one does anyway because it serves some other purpose. I don't need to wash the dishes, I don't want to wash the dishes, but I still do it because I prefer not to generate a trash-pile of disposable plates and utensil with every meal.
> Something doesn't have to be a right to be desirable
What's your point? Convenience is obviously desirable but it's not something society owes you.
> And nobody has a right to private property.
We can agree to disagree on the value of property rights but it's a legally recognized right even if you don't personally recognize it.
> letting His Autocratic Majesty Mark "Dumb Fucks" I. of Zuckerberg do whatever he wants.
I am just going to ignore this obvious strawman argument.
> The issue with monopolies is that individuals cannot chose.
But they can choose. There are hundreds of choices. The argument that not all social networks contain all people does not demonstrate that Facebook is a monopoly. If you have a hypothetical acquaintance who doesn't have a phone or an email and only uses Facebook to communicate that is their prerogative and has absolutely nothing to do with Facebook. That scenario would be identical on literally any platform regardless of how many total users are on the platform.
> A big scary number, but you haven't demonstrated the logical connection between "very popular" and "necessity".
Which is why I didn't stop writing after those 5 words.
> So what?
Have you ever considered that other people may know more about their own lives than you do?
> What's your point? Convenience is obviously desirable but it's not something society owes you.
It's a factor when considering what to do with Facebook.
> I don't want to wash the dishes, but I still do it because I prefer not to generate a trash-pile of disposable plates and utensil with every meal.
That means you need to wash the dishes. If we restrict "need" to things where you have no choice, all you need to do is breathe. I don't want to eat, but I still do it because I prefer not to starve.
> it's a legally recognized right
True, but not an argument.
> The argument that not all social networks contain all people does not demonstrate that Facebook is a monopoly.
> Which is why I didn't stop writing after those 5 words.
I don't see that explanation anywhere. Something being popular does not mean you need it; that should be pretty obvious. If you need something then it is necessary regardless of how popular it is.
> Have you ever considered that other people may know more about their own lives than you do?
That's a nice platitude but not an explanation for why someone saying they need something means that they actually need it. A pothead might claim to need weed but that doesn't mean society should have an obligation to accommodate him based on the justification that "people may know more about their own lives than you do"
> It's a factor when considering what to do with Facebook.
It's not a factor because convenience is not something you are owed.
> That means you need to wash the dishes. If we restrict "need" to things where you have no choice, all you need to do is breathe. I don't want to eat, but I still do it because I prefer not to starve.
Damn that is some disingenuous semantic foolishness. I don't need to do the dishes because I could buy a box of paper plates instead which is a decision that will not at all impact my health or livelihood. I need to eat because the needs that underpin survival are the default assumptions made by an intellectually honest individual when the term "need" is used. When I say need I mean a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism.
> True, but not an argument.
So what are you saying? An individual's right to access Facebook is more fundamental than Facebook's right to operate their computers in a manner that is consistent with their prerogatives?
If you don't see an explanation anywhere, it's because you don't want to see it. I have written like half a dozen.
> That's a nice platitude but not an explanation for why someone saying they need something means that they actually need it.
Ditto
> It's not a factor because convenience is not something you are owed.
Non sequitur
> I need to eat because the needs that underpin survival are the default assumptions made by an intellectually honest individual when the term "need" is used. When I say need I mean a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism.
That's two contradictory definitions, survival and well-being is not the same. Even under this definition, you still haven't provided the extraordinary proof necessary for the extraordinary claim that nobody needs Facebook. You've merely asserted it – somehow believing that your assertions about the lifes of people you don't know are more accurate than what these people believe.
> An individual's right to access Facebook is more fundamental than Facebook's right to operate their computers in a manner that is consistent with their prerogatives?
Facebook does not have any rights to begin with. Like all companies, its only legitimate purpose is to serve the public – which is why the convenience of the many trumps the desire of one Mr. Zuckerberg to control Facebook.
A big scary number, but you haven't demonstrated the logical connection between "very popular" and "necessity".
> Many of them say they need Facebook
So what?
> Many of them use Facebook even though they don't like it -- why would someone do that unless they must
This argument doesn't make sense. There are many things in life that one does not need to do, and one does not want to do, but one does anyway because it serves some other purpose. I don't need to wash the dishes, I don't want to wash the dishes, but I still do it because I prefer not to generate a trash-pile of disposable plates and utensil with every meal.
> Something doesn't have to be a right to be desirable
What's your point? Convenience is obviously desirable but it's not something society owes you.
> And nobody has a right to private property.
We can agree to disagree on the value of property rights but it's a legally recognized right even if you don't personally recognize it.
> letting His Autocratic Majesty Mark "Dumb Fucks" I. of Zuckerberg do whatever he wants.
I am just going to ignore this obvious strawman argument.
> The issue with monopolies is that individuals cannot chose.
But they can choose. There are hundreds of choices. The argument that not all social networks contain all people does not demonstrate that Facebook is a monopoly. If you have a hypothetical acquaintance who doesn't have a phone or an email and only uses Facebook to communicate that is their prerogative and has absolutely nothing to do with Facebook. That scenario would be identical on literally any platform regardless of how many total users are on the platform.