I’ve never understood the phrase “X has no right to Y.” In this context, it’s doubly absurd. Americans have a right. A Constitutional right. The very first one in the Bill of Rights.
Users quibbling at Facebook is negotiation (albeit ineffectively done). Voters complaining via political channels is activism, a First Amendment right.
I know you want to quibble part of that one sentence. Let me help you read the full sentence / context so that you can see the deeper point, in case you missed it.
If you read the full context, I said "in my opinion ...", and not "according to American constitutional law ...".
I am using the word "right" in the "moral" sense of the word, and not the "legal" sense of the word (and you can look up the definition of the word "right" if you prefer).
Now, perhaps, you can look at the entire context of that sentence and give address the actual point I was trying to make.
> I am using the word "right" in the "moral" sense of the word
Calling legal, Constitutionally-protected political protest immoral because someone "did not feel a chill run down their spines after Snowden's leaks" isn't better.
Jumping up to your original comment [1]:
> Why are people surprised by all this?
It's novel. Specific beats abstract, actual beats hypothetical, relatable beats austere. In Cambridge Analytica we have a specific example of Facebook dropping the ball and creating actual consequences relatable to the average American.
Americans love to forgive. We wanted to see Zuckerberg acknowledge the issue, take responsibility and overcorrect. (Think: Tylenol [2].) Instead Zuckerberg disappeared for a few days, apologized like he was making a scripted sales pitch [3] and proceeded to do nothing tangibly evident to the average American. Seeing Facebook lie and cheat so brazenly, in respect of a specific, actual and relatable crisis, was novel for many people.
We're also seeing a narrative shift. Facebook once lived in the shadow of Steve Jobs, within Silicon Valley's greater story arc and the myth of the founder. (Think: HBO's Silicon Valley [4].) They were allowed to cut corners as the product of a goofy if influential wunderkid. That's shifting. Shifts surprise. There is no need to throw people under the bus for agreeing later rather than sooner--at the end of the day, agreement is what matters.
I’ve never understood the phrase “X has no right to Y.” In this context, it’s doubly absurd. Americans have a right. A Constitutional right. The very first one in the Bill of Rights.
Users quibbling at Facebook is negotiation (albeit ineffectively done). Voters complaining via political channels is activism, a First Amendment right.