You answer gives me vibes of the recent spat of apologetic answers to the news of Apple banning the "Amphetamine" app in that you defend a behemoth banning some

You answer gives me vibes of the recent spat of apologetic answers to the news of Apple banning the "Amphetamine" app in that you defend a behemoth banning something or someone on vague grounds - a discussion on this type of Stockholm syndrome can be found here [1]. My response on to how to handle the shenanigans of these corporate megaliths - by shunning them [2] - was voted down so I have to assume that this is not seen as a viable option either. Is the general opinion here really that we are to simply give in to the whims of these companies? The argument here is that shared.com distributes "mediocre and crappy content". If that is the bar by which companies are to be measured Facebook itself would never be able to meet it. I sense a need for a new Ralph Nader, someone who has the clout to take on these companies and put them in their place. That place is not in the halls of power, it is not at the dining table of lawmakers, in the ear of regulators. Their place is on the market where they are to compete with other companies, where developers and users use their power of choice to keep them from attaining too much power as they currently clearly have. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25618066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25618066 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25606807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25606807