Reading the article, it's unclear to me what the cost actually is?
>This is not an update, but a new messaging system from which you can’t switch back.
> These are simply features presented to artificially devalue one of the systems, distract from the real changes, and manipulate users into changing to a different system.
> this change will eventually link to your real name.
The third is a conjecture, and as I understand it this is only being offered to people who already have linked their Facebook and Instagram accounts?
Facebook definitely has a "real name" policy, but it isn't clear to me why a unified messaging experience means that your real name will now be shown to other users. That seems like a product decision, rather than an inevitability.
As an aside, I don't like this feature and have not opted into it because I actually dislike interoperability. If there was a hypothetical way to get Twitter DM / IG Direct / Messenger / iMessages all in one unified inbox, I would never use it because I actually prefer to keep things in context. My persona and networks on the various platforms are different on purpose, and I like to keep it that way.
They've probably noticed that Instagram has more marketshare with younger audiences and better engagement, where Facebook is full of your grandma and "old people".
If they can slowly boil the frog and make them the same, they have a much stronger grip. Its better to ask for forgiveness than for permission.
The second is the cost of a degraded system of instagram messaging
If you want features not disappearing or changing when you don't want them to, you need to be in control. I know only two ways to be in control: you either pay (and the agreement contains a provision about the product properties you care about), or manage it yourself.
Using a free-as-in-beer service always puts someone else in control, not you. Bear it in mind every time you register with such a service, and shape your expectations.
You have to realize that what your saying here is a category error: The libre alternatives don't have billions of dollars of marketing, engineering, market cap and users.
EFF here is trying to point out exactly what you are espousing. These kind of dark patterns are used at all levels to drive engagement, including sign up and retention. ("But ... How will I be able to talk to my friends if I delete Facebook??")
I can't recommend a solution, but "Well, its free, what do you expect?" is even worse.
(Yes, indeed, the law works by coercion in the common interests. But I don't see any law having been broken here.)
So yes, it's free to play — what did you expect? Too much? Memorize this, and remember next time. Tell your friends and relatives what to not expect. Name and shame the entities which did something unsavory: this helps make users less gullible, and through that, nudges companies to be more careful.
Consider avoiding the use of stuff you don't control for important things. Be conscious when consuming free candy from a for-profit entity, even if you think your interests are currently aligned. But don't force anybody's hand.
This is excellent advice, but it doesn't help all the people who are not even in the same league as this idea, who are just making their way through the landscape using whatever they come across to not get herded further into the vortex of asshole walled gardens.
The value proposition of this to mom or some kid is gonna sound like: "What?"
But I hope that both the mom and the kid will understand my comparison to free candy. Some moms even teach their kids to be cautious with that.
Our society has really turned the screws up wrt attention, it's pretty taxing just living life sometimes. I hate to get all "hoi polloi", but I mean people are out there that are sure Sars-CoV-2 vaccines render them magnetic.
When there are countless legitimate criticisms to make regarding Facebook, an institution as influential as EFF coming out with something this weak actually hurts the cause.
I hope free market economy prevails or in another words lawsuits fail. They should've learnt their lesson with Microsoft(antitrust is waste of taxpayers' money).
Everyone and everything is worth fighting over.
Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Facebook are all companies that are beyond a reasonable scale - there are far too many eggs in those baskets for long term economic health. Those companies are making GD, Raytheon and Lockheed look like kids playing in a sandbox.
Maybe because >Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Facebook are extremely useful consumer technology companies. I don't know about you but I won't be buying fighter aircraft anytime soon.
1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2020/01/02/ho...
Definitely not, unless you are defining computer in a way that only includes computer form factors that existed in the 90s and also excludes server computers.
The European EC decision was different, but also was not targeting market share.
And try to work from home or remote work on your smartphone and not on your PC or laptop and tell me how productive you are. Or try to get any serious task done on smartphone except taking photos, browsing the web and writing notes.
It did, actually. Microsoft was not able to engage in as many unfair anti-competitive practices in the browser space, and partially because of that, there was a increase in browser competition.
Preventing microsoft from locking the world in to its browser, with illegal and anti-competitive practices, caused lots of better browsers to be developed.
20 years on, Internet Explorer is dead and Microsoft Edge uses Blink (the same engine as Chrome). Firefox is the only other browser with a distinct rendering engine.
Microsoft's Java VM also died. It was removed in XP SP2 and Microsoft no longer distribute, even via MSDN, versions of Windows that shipped with it. You could argue these events lead directly to the creation of .net since Microsoft's original plan was to jump on the Java train.
So it worked, or at least certainly shaped those various markets.