Sure, that would be nice, but the system is not set up in a way such that ethics and generosity are driving factors in the decision making process of corporate executives. Whatever _should_ be is just a fantasy.
> I disagree with the notion that you can stop using it, if you don’t agree with the new TOS.
What is there to disagree with? You have the choice to use your small bit of leverage and withhold your data and content contributions if you don't like the trade-offs of the deal being proffered.
> I understand that causes some operational headaches, but it’s just cost of running a social media company.
The operation cost is nothing compared to the legal liability. From the point of view of the social media company the risk and lack of flexibility downsides far, far outweigh any possible good-will upside to be gained from users.
> What is there to disagree with? You have the choice to use your small bit of leverage and withhold your data and content contributions if you don't like the trade-offs of the deal being proffered.
I think this would be fair if the company were forced to delete your data and never be able to use it again if you no longer agreed to the ToS.
Sure, that would be nice, but the system is not set up in a way such that ethics and generosity are driving factors in the decision making process of corporate executives. Whatever _should_ be is just a fantasy.
> I disagree with the notion that you can stop using it, if you don’t agree with the new TOS.
What is there to disagree with? You have the choice to use your small bit of leverage and withhold your data and content contributions if you don't like the trade-offs of the deal being proffered.
> I understand that causes some operational headaches, but it’s just cost of running a social media company.
The operation cost is nothing compared to the legal liability. From the point of view of the social media company the risk and lack of flexibility downsides far, far outweigh any possible good-will upside to be gained from users.