<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div>Parminder,</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana;" class="">if you really think that no matter
what be the level of market power involved </span></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Strawman.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana;" class="">(and facebook's extreme
market power is so obvious)</span></div></div></blockquote></div><div><div><br class=""></div>The article you posted suggested some folks do not believe it too extreme.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><font face="Verdana" class="">or how deeply public interest oriented
a particular service is </font></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Strawman.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><font face="Verdana" class="">(again, there can be little doubt in this
regard in case of a basic social networking platform), </font></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>There is plenty of doubt.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>An alternative perspective: Facebook is a web-based application operated by a commercial company based in the US. It is one of a myriad (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites" class="">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites</a>) of similar applications, standing out only in their number of users and (as a result) a large amount of money (well, ok, and their propensity to frequently fold, spindle, and mutilate their privacy policies). </div><div><br class=""></div><div>They are not a monopoly (as the article you posted proves). They do not provide critical infrastructure. As both you and I demonstrate, it is possible to live quite comfortably without their service.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Back in the mid- to late-90s, I remember folks made similar "basic service"-type claims of AOL, arguing it needed to be regulated. You don't hear that so much anymore. If you're going to propose a global regulatory regime to impose your will on a commercial company based in the US offering a web-based application, it might be worthwhile first determining whether or not (as a proctologist will tell you) "this too shall pass."</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><font face="Verdana" class="">the
paradigm of 'individual choice' and the market is enough for all
situation - we just do not ever require specific policies or
regulation. </font><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Strawman.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">BTW, would you in that case also oppose net neutrality regulation,
</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>You'd first have to define what you mean by "net neutrality" before I could hazard a guess whether I'd support or oppose it.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">And what about regulating financial capital
that so thoroughly ruined the world economy just a few years back? Can people just not stop using the telco or the bank they do not like rather than seek regulation? </div></div></blockquote><br class=""><div>Red herring.</div><div><br class=""></div></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">It is in this regard that I
made a tentative construction of the problematique of the dangers of
Facebook arbitrarily monetising everyday processes of socialising,
without any public interest oversight. If this does not outrage you,
I will accept that viewpoint as well. <br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div>People voluntarily choose to allow Facebook to monetize their socialization. There is no requirement to use Facebook service. If their business practices outrage me, I choose not to use their service. Seems a much simpler approach than trying to devise a global regulatory regime to regulate the monetization of "everyday processes of socialization."<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regards,</div><div class="">-drc</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>