91–100 of 119 posts
Heck, I wish it was more common to consider if what you're posting is really worth interrupting all of your followers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This won't help much. Evil Enemies of Freedom and US Way of Life will continue to hire low-paid workers in poor countries to post manually, with or without help of whatever Selenium/mbasic.facebook.com automation someone will promptly create.
Yes, of course it can still be done manually, but that introduces magnitudes more friction to their operations. It's no longer "post once, publish everywhere" as far as FB is concerned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, Instagram still works.
This seems like this will trigger anti-trust proceedings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like this will trigger anti-trust proceedings.
How so? Facebook is owned by Facebook. Facebook is simply not allowing other services to post on a user's behalf. Those other services still exist, Facebook is not a public good, etc.
Large companies, particularly in the EU, are not allowed to throw their weight around to privilege their own services and apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like this will trigger anti-trust proceedings.
How so? Facebook is owned by Facebook. Facebook is simply not allowing other services to post on a user's behalf. Those other services still exist, Facebook is not a public good, etc.
The argument here is that Facebook is a natural monopoly and by only allowing Instagram to post automatically to a users timeline, they are leveraging that legal natural monopolies power to advantage Instagram.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? Facebook is owned by Facebook. Facebook is simply not allowing other services to post on a user's behalf. Those other services still exist, Facebook is not a public good, etc.
Google Shopping was fined over less: https://www.tnooz.com/article/google-shopping-decision-sets-... Large companies, particularly in the EU, are not allowed to throw their weight around to privilege their own services and apps.
Google prioritizing their offerings over other vendors on a search they control is far different than "Can't post on Facebook from Twitter".
Google has put itself forward as a fairly agnostic search. No one signs up to be indexed by Google. It works more like a common good. So when Google starts offering a service, then puts its own offerings before others in its search. That's dirty pool.
But that's not what's happening here. Facebook is a platform to connect with other people who are also on Facebook. It doesn't purport to be a central hub for anything but Facebook. It's just not allowing Twitter (and others) to post on users' behalf.
People who follow me on Facebook are different than people who follow me on Twitter. The integration was nice because I could send messages to both platforms at once and would get responses from different people on each. I'm not going to copy-paste every tweet into Facebook, so I suspect I'll basically go silent on that platform. Which sucks. And if I'm not an active part of the Facebook community, I'll probably visi…
I switched from Facebook to Twitter/Snap/Insta. Much easier than I expected, I still check my facebook once every few weeks, but the content on FB was garbage.
My usage of Facebook would probably increase if there was a way to filter-on site-keywords in and out of my newsfeed instead of relying on a browser extension.
As it is, I'm constantly hiding posts, snoozing or unfollowing people altogether-thinking "Fine Facebook, if you want to use algorithms based on how I use the site to customize my newsfeed, customize this".
Seems the site hasn't yet picked up that I don't want everyone's oversimplified political hot takes (but I like one Nicholas Cage meme and suddenly FB reacts "Would you like ALL the Cage recommendations??" No, not really). I like checking in on my friends, and that's the extant of how useful FB is to me, but there's a real fatigue to the political fatalism front and center.
So, twitter it is. So I can get my oversimplified sports hot takes. Those are at least humorous and entertaining.
If a social network comes along and grants me that kind of control, I would gladly beta that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? Facebook is owned by Facebook. Facebook is simply not allowing other services to post on a user's behalf. Those other services still exist, Facebook is not a public good, etc.
A big part of anti-trust law in the US is that natural monopolies are permitted - you can build a business that dominates your market segment and not be subject to anti-trust proceedings, but you cannot use that natural monopoly to advantage your other lines of business by providing them with exclusive, preferred or other special treatment in said natural monopoly. This was the crux of US vs. MSFT. The argument here…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google Shopping was fined over less: https://www.tnooz.com/article/google-shopping-decision-sets-... Large companies, particularly in the EU, are not allowed to throw their weight around to privilege their own services and apps.
That's not "less". That's way more. Google prioritizing their offerings over other vendors on a search they control is far different than "Can't post on Facebook from Twitter". Google has put itself forward as a fairly agnostic search. No one signs up to be indexed by Google. It works more like a common good. So when Google starts offering a service, then puts its own offerings before others in its search. That's dir…