I am afraid of large powerful private companies - now and even more in future. They can fire you, reject providing services that are essential to function in a modern society - if your position on some topics is different from theirs. Now you cannot refer to the freedom of opinion - it is a private entity and they are free to decide whether they want to cancel or fire you.
The mechanism here appears to be (the article itself is light on facts) a contract, same as would be with a private entity. The entity on the other end of the contract could be private, public or mixed. The rule/clause may originate in a contract between this entity and a 3rd party, or the entity's interpretation/implementation of a regulatory framework.
In regulated industries, the last version is ubiquitous. A bank, casino or whatnot will have a "compliance" function. There will be "regulatory/compliance" requirements, rules and clauses. It's never clear whether these are government rules, private policies, etc.
We have a lot of examples in history when the institutions that are designed to be moral guides bend their principles to the ruling ideology: Catholic Church in Nazi Germany, Orthodox Church in Soviet & Putin Russia.
I think large companies tend to eagerly adopt any moral principles that bring them more customer, attracts more employees, helps to get government contracts, and avoid lawsuits.
A vaccine mandate is a non-starter only in the current poisonous US political environment. There is historical precedent for vaccine mandates in the US: polio. What else are reasonably careful policy makers to do if a very vocal minority has the ability to block any progress?
When it comes to utilities, I absolutely agree. But not a specific email provider or social media site or video site, etc.
Also my friend went to a university where the official communication for course-work happened through Facebook. I'm not sure how someone without access to Facebook would be able to participate in that program.
That's absurd and a failure on the university's part. What country was this in.
Well this is moving the goal-posts isn't it? The comment I responded to said that the effect of being denied access to a certain social media platform is overstated. I would argue for media professionals it's basically a requirement.
> That's absurd and a failure on the university's part. What country was this in.
This was a masters program in Germany
Witholding access to course materials, unless a student enters a contract/relationship with a third-party (Facebook or otherwise), is coersion. I would certainly kick up a fuss: start politely with those running the course (who probably didn't give it much thought); go up the chain as necessary.
At each step, make sure the focus remains on the coersion: the University is retroactively adding terms (e.g. whatever is in Facebook's policies) to the contracts agreed during enrollment. It is threatening to impose penalties (e.g. lost marks) on those who don't accept such unilateral changes.
Do not allow the issue to get derailed into tangential concerns, especially money (e.g. price of the service, or provision of equipment/connections, etc.). Those things could be solved by signing a cheque; but would not address the real problem. If concrete reasons is really needed, there are a bunch to choose from that aren't easily solved (and are not under the University's control): for Facebook/Meta there are a whole bunch, from real name requirements, privacy concerns, non-consentual psychology experiments, etc. Personally I would just say I find the company, their products and their business practices unethical.
(I had a similar experience when my Physics course tried to make me use Microsoft Excel)
If I find myself agreeing with the average Redditor or Twitter user (god-forbid a blue check!) it’s usually a sign that something is missing from my thought process and I should shake things up a little.
If I was forced to change my email address, I might not be able to recover some accounts. Some don't support changing username (which is my email). I don't want to count the number of websites I'd need to update.
The only way corporations will take control of our society is if we let them. I am continually amazed by how much people let corporations and attorneys bully them. There is this pervasive attitude that they control everything and it is dangerous to fight back. If that attitude continues to prevail, then yes - that is when we will have serious problems.
I am not sure you have an accessibility case regarding a facebook group. It is accessible for individuals with disabilities, via the use of electronic aides such as screen readers. Accessibility does not mean, "I get whatever I want whenever I want." It means, "I can access this without my disability impeding that."
Not having facebook is not a disability.
I'm very, very confused by what you're saying.
But that is missing the forest for the trees - the specifics of this anecdote are one small point. Standing up for yourself is the bigger point. I could be 100% wrong about the accessibility in schools, but that doesn't change my larger wish - that we would all stand up and push back when we see problems... not just dismissively say, "well, we'd never win that fight, so don't even try."
I don't see a more accessible option. Facebook is as close to ubiquitous and universal as you can get, really. If someone cannot, not won't as the original poster said, but simply cannot access facebook, what other option is there? That means they have no smartphone, or internet access, at all. Therefore, there are no electronic options that exist. Physical paper mailers home? If they cannot afford a smartphone, what are the chances they have a permanent residence? Or, what for the parents who have no permanent residence. So that's not a solution. Next option - in person group meetings? Work, kids, health, transportation, any number of things exist that could be a barrier there. So what's the solution? That's not a flippant question, that's a real question. I don't see it.
Again, accessibility should be about ensuring everyone has the opportunity to access the goods and services in an equivalent way. Not about ensuring everyone gets to access the goods and services in the specific way they want to.
This all started with OP originally talking about not wanting a facebook. Not to sound too hateful, but part of living in society is understanding that certain personal concessions will have to be made. Like it or lump it, decisions have consequences.
Maybe I've gone too far off the path, but I think it's all related.
E-mail for instance: You need an E-mail account to sign up for Facebook, so that means E-mail's userbase is at least a superset of Facebook's. Since you need Internet for E-mail, then the user-base for a normal, Internet web site should be a superset of E-mail users. Keep looking for supersets until the effort spent reaching the next one doesn't make sense anymore.
You could try pushing back with a First Amendment complaint. Say you have a sincere and deeply held belief that using Facebook is wrong, and that forcing you to use it violates your First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has held that beliefs do not need to be strictly religious in order to be protected. It's the same route anti-vaxxers take.
I still wouldn't hold my breath. You might win, but your children will already be in college by the time it's all sorted.
A lot of people who sell crafts and bespoke items will probably rely on access to various marketplaces and payment processors; and arguably the social media platforms could be considered essential for marketing. Drivers and people working delivery gigs would rely on their own platforms like Uber or Deliveroo, etc.
For personal use, I would be inclined to agree with you; many of the platforms are more of a nuisance than anything else.