I went through the arduous process of deleting my Facebook account about 8 years ago. 2 years ago, I started doing freelance software development, and at some point almost every one of my clients has wanted me to implement a Facebook login. I could say no, but then I'm likely losing my livelihood. And in order to implement Facebook logins, you need a Facebook account (to administrate and view documentation).
My girlfriend cleans up estates, meaning that when someone dies, she helps the family of the deceased clean up the deceased's house. A lot of that involves selling their stuff, for which she splits the profits with the heirs. It used to be that Craigslist was the best place to sell stuff, but increasingly it's much harder to sell stuff on Craigslist, and easier to sell on Facebook marketplace. And again, to buy/sell there, you really need a Facebook account. She also does other odd jobs, and again, most of these are found through Facebook.
Maybe Facebook isn't necessary for the ways you benefit from the internet, but your experience isn't everyone's.
1. When I considered the necessity of onboarding a third party, it's very difficult to prevent the cost from becoming prohibitive.
2. My client hired me because he wanted ME to do the work. I have over a decade of industry experience, lots of high-quality training, speak English fluently and am good at communication. Those skills and experience result in me producing quality work. The only way I was able to subcontract to someone in such a way that the cost approached not being prohibitive was to hire developers from the third world. That puts me in the position of a) trying to sell my client on lower-quality developers at basically the same cost, or b) doing this in secret, which I refuse to do, because it's unprofessional and worse than implementing Facebook in my personal ethics.
Do you really not see the problem with suggesting people switch careers every time an overbearing corporation starts exerting excessive control over their industry?
Facebook provides services that people want to use, like Login, or that provides real value better than the competitors (Marketplace).
Complaining that you “have” to use Marketplace because things sell faster on it is totally bizarre.
That's almost always true of monopolistic practices, so I don't see your point.
> Complaining that you “have” to use Marketplace because things sell faster on it is totally bizarre.
If things can't be sold quickly, they often can't be sold at all. There's no place to store this stuff if it can't be sold fairly quickly, as the properties are usually being sold.
Maybe you're rich enough to turn down money, but a lot of people "have to" work for money.
What excessive control or monopolistic practice did Facebook exert in order to help you sell your stuff faster?
Being better at something because you have a lot of users and a halfway decent UI isn't anti-competitive.
Contrast this, for example, with Intel paying competitors not to also sell AMD chips, or Google listing their own inferior products higher in organic Search results.
They aren't helping sell things faster. They're forcing me to use their platform if I want to sell things slightly slower to how I used to sell things on Craigslist. It's faster to sell on Facebook now, but it's not as fast as it used to be on Craigslist.
> Being better at something because you have a lot of users and a halfway decent UI isn't anti-competitive.
They aren't better. If anything, their tooling is inferior to Craigslist's--it's harder to find the things you want on Facebook, and Facebook's seller tools are rudimentary. Facebook has a larger user base because buyers have moved over to Facebook, but the idea that this is an improved experience for anyone is flat wrong. The migration is because Facebook is using their other services to direct people into their marketplace, not because they provide a better marketplace.