Meta has banned the personal Facebook accounts for everyone on our team • Hacker News Board

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

#391

Post by ummonk » Thu, Sep 29, 2022, 4:50 PM UTC

nobody9999 wrote: post #299

ummonk wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THat's not the what you were asking. You asked 'What evidence do you have that this application was acting as a "proxy" where the developers can "intercept and see all data"?' The app is by definition acting as a proxy, and therefore the developers can intercept and see the data, though they might not be doing so currently.

>The app is by definition acting as a proxy, and therefore the developers can intercept and see the data, though they might not be doing so currently. You're making an assumption here that hasn't been confirmed. That assumption being that any app accessing user data from Meta is proxying (i.e., streaming the requested data to the app publisher's servers and then passing that data along to the end user) that data thro…

I (and the person who wrote that) made no such assumption. A client side proxy is still a proxy. That’s why, for example, Charles Proxy is a proxy.

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

#392

Post by barnabee » Thu, Sep 29, 2022, 4:53 PM UTC

Matheus28 wrote: post #318

selfhoster11 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s not be ridiculous. DOS is not use, it’s abuse.

And using their servers and resources without generating them any revenue is not abuse? They clearly don’t want you to run a third party app without ads, yet you feel entitled to it?

If I access your API I’m using your server because you offer it publicly. That is not abuse.

The distinction is about whether you should be able to offer something publicly, taking advantage of public infrastructure to do so, and then make demands about what the public do with that.

Companies want to do the electronic equivalent of putting copyrighted media on a billboard in a public square then claiming you need to sign a contract to look at it and then only through special glasses they provide.

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

#393

Post by nobody9999 » Thu, Sep 29, 2022, 5:02 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #371

nobody9999 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If I grant a friend permission to view my photos, I am not also granting some random 3rd party that permission. Assuming the "third-party" client is just that (a client app), there really shouldn't be an issue. If I use FluffyChat[0] instead of Element[1], do the FluffyChat folks have access to all my (and those with whom I communicate) Matrix communications? If I use Element, do they have such access? If you use Fi…

Those other third party apps usually have a monetization scheme that's clearly separate from a need to steal your data or are open source which allows you to see if there's any weirdness or build it yourself. And I shouldn't need to mention that if it was found out that Firefox was uploading data from every page you read to their servers that there would be a massive reckoning. Tell me, for the OGApp what is the mone…

>Tell me, for the OGApp what is the monetization scheme? How do they intend to make money? By default if you don't see anything upfront you should assume that your data is what is being monetized. And your data in this case includes everything the app can pull down from Instagram while it's acting as a proxy.

I have no idea. I'd never heard of this app as I don't ever use whatever functionality it provides.

I'm not saying these folks are saints, I have no idea what sort of people they are. If it makes you feel better, I'll posit that they're scumbags who would sell their own mother for a nickel.

But that doesn't change the fact that I (or anyone else, for that matter) should be able to use the client of their choice for anything. If that's not the case, then Meta (or HN, for that matter, if they decide to be as scummy as Meta) would be within their rights to decide which browser you use to connect to their properties, and what add-ons you install in that browser.

Sorry, that's not an acceptable solution[0].

>If they want their app to be trusted then it should be made open source.

You won't get any argument about that from me. But even if these guys are all clones of the anti-christ scheming to destroy humanity (for the record, I have no idea and make no value judgement about the ethical standards of the app publisher and its employees) by creating a subset of the data Meta already collects, if I (or anyone else) decides they want to use that software on their personal property, who's to say what can or can't run on that hardware?

I don't (and wouldn't try to) speak for anyone else, but my property belongs to me and I will run the software I choose on my property. That has nothing to do with Meta or the publisher of the app discussed in TFA. Rather, it's about my control of my property. Full stop.

[0] My objection is one of principle, not about any specific software. And I stand by that objection.

Edit: Added footnote.

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

#394

Post by cplusplusfellow » Thu, Sep 29, 2022, 5:08 PM UTC

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…

What you’re missing here is that you don’t actually have a right to be a user.

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

#395

Post by TobyTheDog123 » Thu, Sep 29, 2022, 5:14 PM UTC

dnissley wrote: post #296

TobyTheDog123 wrote: post #175

It is absolutely incredible to me that people are defending Meta in this thread. - Yes, Facebook had the right to do it. They're terrible for doing it, though. Meta is terrible? No way! - I'm extremely exhausted of the "tough luck, it's a private company" shtick when it fits someone's personal interests, but cry corporate capitalistic Hell when it doesn't. - There is nothing I've seen in the Apple Developer Guideline…

You don't think this violates apple's developer guidelines? Just persusing them, I can see violations of sections: 1.6 Data Security 4.1 Copycats 5.1.1 Data Collection and Storage 5.2 Intellectual Property 5.2.2 Third-Party Sites/Services 5.2.3 Audio/Video Downloading

>1.6 Apps should implement appropriate security measures to ensure proper handling of user information collected pursuant

Why do you assume they're not doing that? Why do you believe storing 3rd party account access information is inherently insecure? It's not.

> 4.1 Come up with your own ideas ... Don’t simply copy the latest popular app on the App Store, or make some minor changes to another app’s name or UI and pass it off as your own.

Why would the whole copyright-fair-use-deal not be the standard here? The app in question is absolutely transformative - it's the entire reason people would ever download it.

>5.1.1 See 1.6, it's the same exact reasoning. There is nothing the app does that is inherently insecure or privacy-destroying from a conceptual perspective. Is there something specific in this monstrously-large section you'd like to call out?

>5.2.2 + 5.2.3

Ah, you're actually right here! I don't actually remember seeing 5.2.2 before. OG does violate Apple's developer guidelines. Interesting.

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

#396

Post by Matheus28 » Thu, Sep 29, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #388

Matheus28 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm willing to bet the instagram app already signs their api requests to make sure they're coming from the app. Third party apps are reverse engineering that. If you try to send a request without those headers, it'll very likely give you a 4xx code.

The DMCA already has provisions that say reverse engineering for interoperability is fair game.

You can reverse engineer it all you want, the issue is when you publish something that interacts with a remote resource in a way that the owner of that resource did not allow you to.

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

#397

Post by chaostheory » Thu, Sep 29, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

Nextgrid wrote: post #377

chaostheory wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you can use another service where you pay in money instead of attention like Apple products and services. Let’s not pretend like there aren’t many other alternatives

That's not actually answering the question. Is it legal to look away from ads or mute the volume? If so, it's just as legal to delegate this work to a machine (or to an assistant you hire), or at least, it should be just as legal, though again, I'm not sure that any law has been broken here. Breach of ToS != breach of law. Whether to use the service or not is a completely different question, but when it comes to Face…

You can decide what connects and doesn’t connect to your home network and home computer. I don’t see why Facebook can’t do the same thing.

You’re free to install whatever you want on your machines, but meta is also free to block you from connecting to their servers. It’s not a utility

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

#398

Post by fzeroracer » Thu, Sep 29, 2022, 5:42 PM UTC

nobody9999 wrote: post #393

fzeroracer wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those other third party apps usually have a monetization scheme that's clearly separate from a need to steal your data or are open source which allows you to see if there's any weirdness or build it yourself. And I shouldn't need to mention that if it was found out that Firefox was uploading data from every page you read to their servers that there would be a massive reckoning. Tell me, for the OGApp what is the mone…

>Tell me, for the OGApp what is the monetization scheme? How do they intend to make money? By default if you don't see anything upfront you should assume that your data is what is being monetized. And your data in this case includes everything the app can pull down from Instagram while it's acting as a proxy. I have no idea. I'd never heard of this app as I don't ever use whatever functionality it provides. I'm not s…

Yes, you can choose whatever software you want to run, but Meta would be in full rights to ban you for using third party clients. And Meta has a vested interest in ensuring that people aren't using clients that scam their users out of their credentials because said users don't exist in a vacuum. They have friends, family, private messages and so forth that other users did not consent to have stolen or taken by a third party. This was the whole Cambridge Analytica controversy in a nutshell and their decisions around stuff like this all stem from that.

And in fact, sites are within their rights to determine which browser you can use to connect. Sites are often designed for and optimized around certain browsers and if they detect you running Internet Explorer 3, they can tell you to go away. This is a fact of the internet. And you're just as free to simply not go to their sites. This has been a fact for decades. No site is obligated to serve your obscure internet browser. And no API is obligated to serve every client that calls it.

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

#399

Post by chaostheory » Thu, Sep 29, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #367

chaostheory wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SMS is standard and available on every phone by default. Again people’s personal choices, many of which have alternatives, are not meta’s problem.

Remember when Nestlé gave new mothers free trials of baby formula, that lasted just long enough that they'd stop producing breast milk? Was that okay too, since the mothers could have declined but made the personal choice to accept?

It’s a bad analogy because in this case, the alternatives never went away. If you don’t want to pay for a service upfront with money, you need to pay for it with ads on the service provider’s terms. That is your personal problem stemming from your personal choices. There are alternatives.

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

#400

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Sep 29, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

Matheus28 wrote: post #381

mrguyorama wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rules about things like DRM already have carve outs for "interoperability". A big example is back in the 90s, EA didn't like the rules Sega made for putting games on the MegaDrive/Genesis, so they did some reverse engineering work and made their own cartridges that worked great. Sega took them to court and got smacked down pretty hard, basically invalidating their entire anti-copy strategy. We should push for MORE of…

EA making games for MegaDrive/Genesis doesn’t cost Sega any money. You using the api without ever seeing any ads will actively cost Meta money. Not the same thing.

I agree that it's not the same thing, and I don't know offhand about the MegaDrive/Genesis in particular, but game consoles have often been sold at a loss with profit made on sale of games. If that was true for Sega at the time, anyone EA making games that motivate sales of Sega consoles but no purchase of Sega (or Sega-licensed) games would absolutely be costing Sega money.

I make no particular comment, here, on whether we should be defending that business model.