A Stitch in Haste

One blawger suggests the answer may be yes:

As more of our lives become dependent on Web 2.0 technologies, should we have some sort of rights or consumer protection? Is Facebook the digital equivalent to the company town?

The context was a story that an extremely popular blawger had his Facebook account deleted, supposedly with no explanation (but later updated with a perfectly reasonable "TOS violation" explanation -- and a reinstatement).

In any case, here is the answer I posted:

As more of our lives become dependent on Web 2.0 technologies, should we have some sort of rights or consumer protection? Is Facebook the digital equivalent to the company town?

No and no.

What part of "private property" and "free to the user" are unclear?

I also find it fascinating that this question is being asked in the wake of far more people complaining about exactly the opposite phenomenon: Facebook refusing to delete profiles.

Meanwhile, one person's "dependence" (real or purported) being wielded as a sword upon another person's private property gave us, inter alia, Kelo v. New London. No thanks.

Sometimes private property is just private property. Sometimes a user agreement is just a user agreement.

---

It's like your employer locking you out of your office and not letting you take your things."

No, it's like a hotel guest who makes too much noise, is kicked out and then claims "tortious interference with business" because he missed a sales meeting the next day. Utter nonsense.

Or, if you prefer, it's like your employer firing you and then not letting you copy the draft blogposts you stored on its network [in violation of your employment contract].

Remember always: Adhesion contracts, including EULAs and TOSs, are a good thing. They lower costs, reduce litigation and catalyze innovation. It is a false dichotomy to suggest the alternatives are "unfair adhesion contracts and fair adhesion contracts." The choice is between "voluntary adhesion contracts and nothing." All else is sophistry.