> Facebook's counterargument is money. Which argument do you think they support and will listen to?
The heavy hand of law! I don't understand why people are so worried about introducing regulation. Asking to argue against money is like asking to argue against gun. You can't have a meaningful argument with such an entity, because convincing on arguments assumes the other party is not a psychopath.
That aside, there are many options. I think "having a choice" is a good argument. Or they could allow to actually use pseudonym which you could link your real name or not (so the FB would know the connection but other people wouldn't).
The heavy hand of law! I don't understand why people are so worried about introducing regulation. Asking to argue against money is like asking to argue against gun. You can't have a meaningful argument with such an entity, because convincing on arguments assumes the other party is not a psychopath.
That aside, there are many options. I think "having a choice" is a good argument. Or they could allow to actually use pseudonym which you could link your real name or not (so the FB would know the connection but other people wouldn't).