Looking for a Paperweight? Buy an Oculus Quest 2 and Get Your Facebook Account Locked

[Sybaris_Caesar]

You made a political statement in reference and comparison to a piece of technology. Such was both seriously misguided and wildly inappropriate.

I made a comparison sure but to a phenomena that some people deem political. I neither claimed the phenomena is good nor bad to complicit myself. Regardless the news-piece writer wrote better replies to his criticisms and I feel like my recent comments are not adding anything to the discussion so I'll take my leave. Sayonara.

 

[Valantar]

The way the title is written out is pretty clear. It's that If you are looking for a paperweight (as in, getting your own because you don't have any), you can buy the Quest 2 and then simply act in a way so that your Facebook account gets locked. You, as a reader, are creating a causal, certain relationship (buy a quest 2, get your facebook account locked) where none exists. If the "looking for a Paperweight" wasn't there, I'd agree with you. Clickbait and misleading. As it's written? Sorry, but no. Nor does the content of the news post coincide with your extensively typed clickbait description. The title and initial sentences are also meant to be sarcastic in tone.

I'm all for constructive criticism, but I'm also all for convincing arguments. And I know how I wrote the title; how you read it, however, is out of my control.

Well, in all honesty both readings of the title are equally accurate, as the wording neither indicates nor denies the order of causality in the relation it describes. The sentence is truncated, meaning there's more room for interpretation left in it.
Reading this as
"Buy an Oculus Quest 2, then (do something to) get your FB account locked" (which from what I can tell is what you intended to say) and
"Buy an Oculus Quest 2, and they will lock your FB account"
are about equally reasonable readings of the title. The latter might be more of a vernacular reading (along the verbal rhythm of various "do/get A, and you'll also get B"), but it's not an unreasonable reading. Substituting "and" for "then" opens up the possible meanings of the sentence by quite a lot.

You made a political statement in reference and comparison to a piece of technology. Such was both seriously misguided and wildly inappropriate.

Discussing whether or not a company has the right to require a user account for you to use their product is an inherently political question.

Actually, that would be a very good legal precedent. People have the right to use their own property with or without the involvement of the manufacturer.

Let me quote myself, as it apparently bears repeating:

I wasn't commenting on whether or not it was a good thing. I said it's not going to happen. Which it isn't. Ever. I can't imagine any legal reasoning for why a service provider wouldn't be allowed to require registration to provide their service. The only feasible means of alleviating stuff like this is regulating what data they are allowed to collect and how they can use it, and then enforcing these rules strictly (after all, such measures would pay for themselves given the high likelihood of enormous fines).

The main objection here seems to be that the required account is a Facebook account rather than an Oculus account, which makes this a debate of whether we as a society should accept corporations to exist on a scale such as this or whether they need to be broken up due to their conglomerate nature putting unreasonable pressures on users.

And, again, you were saying this is not political?

 

[bug]

Wait, what TV did YOU buy? No TV I've ever bought requires anything other then it being plugged into the wall and an antenna.

Well, if you're not a cable cutter, you need a cable subscription. If you are, you need to sign up with Netflix or smth. And that before the manufacturer "kindly" offers to sign you up for some of their own services.
Sure, you can use it with just OTA TV and a USB stick, but come on...

But I'm sure you know what I was talking about, TV was just the first thing that popped into my head. And while this particular example may a bit of a stretch, that's what lawyers thrive on anyway

 

[neatfeatguy]

The way the title is written out is pretty clear. It's that If you are looking for a paperweight (as in, getting your own because you don't have any), you can buy the Quest 2 and then simply act in a way so that your Facebook account gets locked. You, as a reader, are creating a causal, certain relationship (buy a quest 2, get your facebook account locked) where none exists. If the "looking for a Paperweight" wasn't there, I'd agree with you. Clickbait and misleading. As it's written? Sorry, but no. Nor does the content of the news post coincide with your extensively typed clickbait description. The title and initial sentences are also meant to be sarcastic in tone.

I'm all for constructive criticism, but I'm also all for convincing arguments. And I know how I wrote the title; how you read it, however, is out of my control.

Believe what you like, that's fine. I understand the sarcasm you were trying to put forward in the story, but it should have been saved for the body of the article, not a horribly misleading title.

However, your title and story could have been written in a much better format to avoid being clickbait.

 

[InVasMani]

 

[lexluthermiester]

Discussing whether or not a company has the right to require a user account for you to use their product is an inherently political question.

Perhaps, but it is first and formost a moral, ethical and idealistic problem.

The main objection here seems to be that the required account is a Facebook account rather than an Oculus account, which makes this a debate of whether we as a society should accept corporations to exist on a scale such as this or whether they need to be broken up due to their conglomerate nature putting unreasonable pressures on users.

I would not disagree with that. However...

And, again, you were saying this is not political?

...this is a social problem not a political one. Granted, solving it will require certain legal actions which would naturally involve law makers.

Well, if you're not a cable cutter, you need a cable subscription.

I've never had cable(that I paid for) in my life. I lived in an apartment complex once that included it, but that doesn't count. Never had satellite either. OTA broadcasts have always been good enough.

 

[Valantar]

Perhaps, but it is first and formost a moral, ethical and idealistic problem.

I would not disagree with that. However...

...this is a social problem not a political one. Granted, solving it will require certain legal actions which would naturally involve law makers.

Politics is the formalization and practical implementation of how we organize our society, which is typically done on the basis of discussions of ethics and ideals. There is no such thing as a social problem that isn't a political one.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Politics is the formalization and practical implementation of how we organize our society

No, politics is government almost exclusively.

There is no such thing as a social problem that isn't a political one.

I think your idea of what "politics" is needs revision.

That said, if anyone is going to put a stop to corporations like Facebook using such tactics in their business model, it's going to require legislation and laws limiting how much control manufacturers have over devices they make once sold to the end user. Such laws are LONG over due.

 

[Valantar]

No, politics is government almost exclusively.

I think your idea of what "politics" is needs revision.

That said, if anyone is going to put a stop to corporations like Facebook using such tactics in their business model, it's going to require legislation and laws limiting how much control manufacturers have over devices they make once sold to the end user. Such laws are LONG over due.

Sorry, but you are the one here with an overly narrow definition of a very, very broad topic. I hate to quote Wikipedia, but: "Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status."

The concept of politics is in no way limited to formalized and institutional politics - that's just its most explicit embodiment. Trying to convince someone to change their opinion about something that affects their position in or view of the world? That's a political activity (and what politicians do when they are campaigning). Trying to analyze why something in society or the world works in a certain way? That's the basis upon which political action is possible. Etc., etc. Claiming that "politics" is limited to its institutionalized embodiments is either willful ignorance (such as wanting the word to have a more narrow meaning than what it does due to the negative connotations of the word) or just plain misunderstanding of how things work. But this is getting very OT, so I would really prefer to leave this discussion here.

 

[Mindweaver]

Guys, take this to PM or let it go...

 

[Slizzo]

I would be (I am) a verified and registered user so this wouldn't be a problem. It does suck that those who are trying to make it happen, indeed. However, get your shiza in order and this doesn't happen.

Nope. There's users with long standing Facebook and/or Oculus accounts, that upon linking got a ban notice from Facebook and had to fight to get an actual human to review the ban. At the point a facebook account is banned, you lose ALL access to your Oculus account, and anything you have purchased on it. Also, you are unable to use the Quest 2 headset due to it's requirement that you be logged into the store in order to access your content.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Nope. There's users with long standing Facebook and/or Oculus accounts, that upon linking got a ban notice from Facebook and had to fight to get an actual human to review the ban. At the point a facebook account is banned, you lose ALL access to your Oculus account, and anything you have purchased on it. Also, you are unable to use the Quest 2 headset due to it's requirement that you be logged into the store in order to access your content.

Exactly. This is why it is so wrong to require such a condition to use hardware you own. I feel the same way about software which is why I'm such an ardent supporter of GOG.com.

 

[bug]

Exactly. This is why it is so wrong to require such a condition to use hardware you own. I feel the same way about software which is why I'm such an ardent supporter of GOG.com.

"Hardware you own"... You crack me up

 

[lexluthermiester]

"Hardware you own"... You crack me up

How is that funny?

 

[bug]

How is that funny?

In a world where manufacturers try all sort of tricks (from locked firmware to online activation) to keep control of their hardware, I think suggesting the customer still owns the hardware is pretty hilarious.
At this point, I'm grateful hammers and screwdrivers don't need online registration.

 

[windwhirl]

In a world where manufacturers try all sort of tricks (from locked firmware to online activation) to keep control of their hardware, I think suggesting the customer still own the hardware is pretty hilarious.
At this point, I'm grateful hammers and screwdrivers don't need online registration.

And then there is the problem of getting spare parts to fix it by yourself. Some you can get, some others not. Plus access to the knowledge necessary to perform those repairs.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I think suggesting the customer still own the hardware is pretty hilarious.

Not from a legal point of view. In the eyes of the law, possession is still 99% of the law. You buy something, you own it, you're responsible for it and you're liable for it. Companies should not have the power to dictate when and how you use it.

 

[bug]

Not from a legal point of view. In the eyes of the law, possession is still 99% of the law. You buy something, you own it, you're responsible for it and you're liable for it. Companies should not have the power to dictate when and how you use it.

Yes and the loophole is you own the hardware, but the hardware is useless without services you don't own... Which is what we're looking at with Oculus Quest 2. Buyers appear unfazed, tho.

 

[kroks]

that can't be legal....

 

[InVasMani]

And then there is the problem of getting spare parts to fix it by yourself. Some you can get, some others not. Plus access to the knowledge necessary to perform those repairs.

Far too many things aren't built to last these days or worse deliberately built to fail after a short period.

 

[bug]

Far too many things aren't built to last these days or worse deliberately built to fail after a short period.

Yeah, I broke a few corkscrews and now I'm using now one left from my grandfather, God rest his soul. Works like new. And it's just one example.
I'm amazed (no, not really) the environmentalists don't have anything to say about this.

 

[300BaudBob]

I'm amazed (no, not really) the environmentalists don't have anything to say about this.

Actually they do but big money talks louder.

 

[hat]

Yes and the loophole is you own the hardware, but the hardware is useless without services you don't own... Which is what we're looking at with Oculus Quest 2. Buyers appear unfazed, tho.

Of course the buyers are unfazed. Those of us who aren't buying it, however, are a different story. But everyone and their dog has a Facebook account anyway, so whatever.

 

[bug]

Of course the buyers are unfazed. Those of us who aren't buying it, however, are a different story. But everyone and their dog has a Facebook account anyway, so whatever.

My beef isn't FB per se. I don't have an account because I feel I don't have the time to keep track of it, not because I'm overly concerned by privacy. But once you tie a piece of hardware to an online service, that hardware piece won't last longer than the service itself. If that.

 

[Valantar]

Yeah, I broke a few corkscrews and now I'm using now one left from my grandfather, God rest his soul. Works like new. And it's just one example.
I'm amazed (no, not really) the environmentalists don't have anything to say about this.

You must not pay much attention then. Right to repair laws and regulations disincentivizing planned obsolescence are major focuses among quite a few environmentalist groups. Not to the same level as the overall fight against climate change, obviously, but it's up there.