Why not, y'know, just not use Facebook? Are we complicating this issue just to have a discussion? The solution is really simple, yet there seems to be tunnel vision when it comes to thinking of it.
The whole point of the WWW is that you must not rely on your user having a particular browser. Or operating system. Or display resolution. Or a display at all. You serve valid stuff and allow the client to parse it how they like. You can suggest nice font sizes and good contrast colours, but if they want to view it at 72 pt in pink on yellow they can.
Lots of the WWW ignores the fact that people may be using different screens or different whatever to view the content. Luckily we're moving away from fixed font sizes and a little fixed width blob of content in the middle of an otherwise white screen, but there are still weird lock ins around.
And Facebook are just following this trend - "this is our content, and it's our service, and you'll view it how we want you to".
Your wider point is a good one though. If people are annoyed at ads they should stop visiting the site serving those ads, with maybe a polite email explaining why they're not going to visit again.
>> Man, this really blows. FB Purity helps me, a blind user, actually use Facebook more effectively than without it. sighs I do hope you continue to fight the power.
Is it OK for a user agent, running on my hardware, to alter the way content is displayed? Can the FB TOS actually be binding when it restricts your ability to do this?
If people are annoyed at ads they should stop visiting ad servers. Hence, AdBlock and Ghostery.
No, it is not a direct payment. Yes, it is a transaction.
Yes, there are ways to get around Facebook's ad serving and use the service "for free", in that sense.
Is it possible? Sure.. Is it legal? Probably.. Is it the right thing to do? Probably not..
If you object to the ads being served to you on Facebook, you should probably not use the service at all..
It's more like I want to go to the store, so I invite the store to send me a driver who will use my car to drive me to the store. The store accepts my invitation, but when the driver shows up he wants to invite a bunch of hitchhikers into my car but I politely decline. Meanwhile, I'm driven to the store.
Your bus analogy assumes that Facebook owns and operates my browser. That is incorrect.
But like I said. Analogies get really dumb when you get too deeply into them.
The snarky knee-jerk answer is, why not throw away my cellphone and cancel my contract with the ISP while I'm at it? They also do things I disagree with.
The longer answer is that Facebook is how most of my friends communicate now, and how they schedule social events. I could delete my account, but it would mean a lot more friction when trying to talk to people, planning events, and attending events planned by others.
perhaps those people need to pay more attention to you, instead of to your facebook status and/or wall. Real friends sms or call once in a while.
Technology changes. Preferences vary. Declaring your friends inadequate based on chosen mode of communication is ridiculous.
Between TV, magazines, in-game advertising, billboards, and now airport screening trays, the ad overload finally became more than I was willing to tolerate.
So instead of telling people to take it, do like or predecessors and fight back. I'm pretty sure if this was back in the Ma Bell days, you'd be telling the crowd that 'Real Friends' send letters via post!
It isn't evolving "independently" - its just the sum of the actions of everyone. So, to dicate it, you can attemot to convince your friends of the benefits of moving off it. If it is true that there is benefit form moving off, then it will happen eventually.
...oh except of course, if you get locked in, as designed.
When you become a squeaky wheel by demanding special treatment, you don't always get the oil - sometimes you get taken off and left in a ditch.