It's odd to see things like Facebook framed as necessary and vital to our social/cultural wellbeing when we've only lived under their influence for a handful of years. Authors do a great job outlining how difficult it is to effectively "quit" Facebook, but don't make half as compelling an argument about why we need Facebook.

Indeed, at a certain point, the authors create sort of a false equivalency between things like Facebook and other privacy-threatening amenities such as credit cards or bank accounts. But the stark fact is, we voluntarily give up some right to privacy when we apply for credit or open a bank account because we actually need those things. We don't need Facebook in the strictest sense, and therefore can afford to pass it up in favor of other social outlets current and future. This article, on the other hand, is predicated on the assumption that we somehow can't afford to live without Facebook. Which is kind of absurd, considering how long we lived without Facebook before we lived with Facebook.

It's also odd that they criticize the "love it or leave it" strategy as "behavior that justifies a never-ending strategy of abandoning every social technology that threatens privacy -- a can being kicked down the road in perpetuity without us resolving the hard question of whether a satisfying balance between protection and publicity can be found online." Isn't abandoning a product due to privacy concerns the free market capitalist solution in and of itself? Isn't this what our economy is predicated upon- the idea that if you don't like a product, you can choose to abandon it until it's been improved, and that enough pressure by way of lost revenue will force improvement? Why, then, should we stick with a product we hate? Because we need it? But we don't.