Reject Premise 1: deleting Facebook is not a feasible action for a significant number of people. #deletefacebook underestimates how deeply Facebook, and social media platforms in general, are embedded in modern life (Vox).
Reject Premise 2: this is not an effective solution to problems with data privacy. Other firms hold on to large amounts of data; punishing one company is a feel-good quick fix that doesn’t generate the broader political impetus to reform legislation (Washington Post).
Reject Premise 3: there are better ways to ensure that data privacy is respected. Data privacy protection is best guaranteed at the legislative level. We should enforce compliance with legislative frameworks instead (The Economist).Reject
Premise 4: both proponents and opponents of #deletefacebook might reject this premise.Proponents of #deletefacebook might argue that, even if an action is unfeasible or ineffective, it still ought to be taken because of the intrinsic value of protest. (Strictly speaking, this is not a rejection of the premise, since the premise doesn’t contain the “if and only if” conditional.)Opponents of #deletefacebook might argue that Premise 4 is an insufficient reason to take an action. There are some actions which are feasible and effectively solve problems, but that carry costs which are too high to bear. To evaluate whether we should take an action, we should consider not only the benefits that arise, but weigh these against the costs. Losing the connectivity Facebook offers is a relevant cost. The benefits must be weighed against the costs for the argument to be complete.