Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta has banned the personal Facebook accounts for everyone on our team

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 442 posts

Re: Meta has banned the personal Facebook accounts for everyone on our team

#141

Post by bfdm »

Matheus28 wrote: post #83
amatecha wrote: post #45

Oh wow, this app got pulled from everything because it's an unofficial 3rd party client for Instagram? I'll say it again, companies should be legally forbidden from blocking 3rd party clients. They don't have to explicitly support them, but taking action to explicitly thwart them (and writing ToS that forbids them) should be outlawed. There's no reason I should have to be subjected to untold tracking, snooping and ad…

Why should 3rd parties be allowed to make unauthorized api requests? Additionally, some apps are only monetized through advertisement, and 3rd party apps don't display them. How do you expect the 1st party to stay in business? I don't align with Meta on a lot of issues, but they should be able to control what apps interact with their platform. Don't like it, don't use it.

Why shouldn't I be able to uae the software of my choosing? If i habe an account and have properly authenticated, the client I use is my choice.

You can't reasonably make the "go elsewhere" argument with the monopoly hold FB has on much social data. We need to choose yo regulate them and others to force interoperability, or at the very least allow comcom explicitly (competitive compatibility).

Re: Meta has banned the personal Facebook accounts for everyone on our team

#142

Post by josephcsible »

Matheus28 wrote: post #134
josephcsible wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what phone companies used to do, and they only stopped when the government made them stop. It was more profitable for them, at our expense.

AFAIK you've always been able to bring your own phone. They just wouldn't unlock your subsidized phone after the contract ended (which I find unfair, but it's in the contract people signed, so...). Regardless, I think this line of thought is becoming too off-topic. Why should the first party be serving content to people using third party apps that generate them no revenue? Just like websites are free to block adblock…

I'm not talking about cell phones. I'm talking about rotary dial phones back in the days of Ma Bell.

Re: Meta has banned the personal Facebook accounts for everyone on our team

#143

Post by Matheus28 »

bfdm wrote: post #141
Matheus28 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should 3rd parties be allowed to make unauthorized api requests? Additionally, some apps are only monetized through advertisement, and 3rd party apps don't display them. How do you expect the 1st party to stay in business? I don't align with Meta on a lot of issues, but they should be able to control what apps interact with their platform. Don't like it, don't use it.

Why shouldn't I be able to uae the software of my choosing? If i habe an account and have properly authenticated, the client I use is my choice. You can't reasonably make the "go elsewhere" argument with the monopoly hold FB has on much social data. We need to choose yo regulate them and others to force interoperability, or at the very least allow comcom explicitly (competitive compatibility).

So you want to consume their content, use their servers, but not display their ads?

Re: Meta has banned the personal Facebook accounts for everyone on our team

#144

Post by vintermann »

Matheus28 wrote: post #116
josephcsible wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should phone companies get to force you to use phones you rent from them, instead of having the freedom to bring your own?

If that's their business model and they want to, sure. I'd guess that most wouldn't because it's not as profitable (they'd lose too many customers).

I don't think there should be "freedom of business model". We aren't obliged to respect and comply with your choice of way of getting rich. If your business model is dependent on people looking at you in the "right" way then tough luck.

Re: Meta has banned the personal Facebook accounts for everyone on our team

#145

Post by jjulius »

ipsum2 wrote: post #27
Dylan16807 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you accusing these developers of violating privacy? If not, you're twisting things to the point of deception. Facebook is supposed to crack down, yes, but it's a specific thing they're supposed to crack down on, not ad-removal.

> Are you accusing these developers of violating privacy? Yes, the app is downloading private user messages (ostensibly to show a modified messaging interface) and private photos, according to their feature list. This isn't a simple DNS-level ad-block, its acting as a proxy where the app developers can intercept and see all data. Their website doesn't even have a privacy policy, just a dummy link: https://www.theogap…

>Yes...

Do you have evidence of this? An example of network traffic indicating that the app is communicating with something other than Meta, perhaps?

Re: Meta has banned the personal Facebook accounts for everyone on our team

#146

Post by josephcsible »

naet wrote: post #29

If it was a really good app you made, why not also make your own backend and completely decouple from meta? If you build an app using the meta platform in a way that is a clear violation of their tos, the app will obviously be killed the second it gets popular. If I was running a service and another company attempted to do this to my service (violated my TOS, built on top of my private API in a way that striped all m…

> If it was a really good app you made, why not also make your own backend and completely decouple from meta?

Because of the network effect.

Re: Meta has banned the personal Facebook accounts for everyone on our team

#147

Post by cortesoft »

amatecha wrote: post #127
voidwtf wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, that’s fair, but how should the platform be compensated for the resources expended by the users or developers in question? Would you be ok with a usage plan? Something like $1 per 10,000 tweets read? I mean, the developer could save money by caching the most popular tweets and serving them from their cache, I imagine they’d have to charge for that infrastructure though and somehow they would pass the costs into t…

Sure, that's fine by me. Or even "video content is restricted to 240p unless you have a paid subscription, then you can see videos in 1080p". Right? It's 1000% possible to come up with totally fair business models that aren't so blatantly exploitative. Right now "the user is the product" on ANY free service. Previously there was App.net, which was effectively "Twitter but you pay for access". It had a free tier which…

Ok... what if they said, "it is free if you use our app and let us advertise to you, or you can pay us and use any client you want"?

Re: Meta has banned the personal Facebook accounts for everyone on our team

#148

Post by voidwtf »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #42
voidwtf wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870 Except for the part where the TOS explicitly states that you will be banned from all Metas products…

No, not except. That is a bad thing, and putting it in the TOS does not change whether it is a bad thing.

I don’t disagree on that point. I’m just making it clear it was in the TOS.

I don’t want my gmail account permanently because of a comment I made on YouTube, nor do I think that should be commonplace. I’m not sure what the best solution is though.

I once worked for a server hosting company that had a few different “branches”. It was pretty common to see different types of misuse or abuse. Whether it be credit card theft, hosting copyrighted content, or hosting phishing sites. I would go out of my way to monitor for and ban all associated accounts at all branches of the company. Not because I wanted to ban their personal accounts, but because 99% of the time those associated accounts would immediately engage in the same behavior. You can sit there all day playing whack-a-mole, or you can exterminate the mole.

Re: Meta has banned the personal Facebook accounts for everyone on our team

#149

Post by tptacek »

bfdm wrote: post #141
Matheus28 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should 3rd parties be allowed to make unauthorized api requests? Additionally, some apps are only monetized through advertisement, and 3rd party apps don't display them. How do you expect the 1st party to stay in business? I don't align with Meta on a lot of issues, but they should be able to control what apps interact with their platform. Don't like it, don't use it.

Why shouldn't I be able to uae the software of my choosing? If i habe an account and have properly authenticated, the client I use is my choice. You can't reasonably make the "go elsewhere" argument with the monopoly hold FB has on much social data. We need to choose yo regulate them and others to force interoperability, or at the very least allow comcom explicitly (competitive compatibility).

Because your access to their API is conditioned on an agreement not to use unauthorized clients. You are free to use the software of your choosing in conjunction with your own computers, but not necessarily with everybody else's.

Re: Meta has banned the personal Facebook accounts for everyone on our team

#150

Post by josephcsible »

dleslie wrote: post #138

Many folks on here might be too young to remember, but there was an era where cable companies served premium channels with a scrambled signal to all customers, and sold access by way of attaching the appropriate filter. In fact, all channels were protected in this way, with your cable box holding the necessary filters. Albeit, some were merely hidden by a band pass filter and not scrambled. Anyhow, those arguing that…

If a third party can build a box to decrypt your encryption without you providing a key, then instead of suing the third party out of existence, you should pick a new encryption algorithm that's actually secure. Consider this analogy: should Master Lock be able to sue companies that make padlock shims, since several of their locks are vulnerable to shimming attacks?
Post reply on HN