41–50 of 87 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do employers find out the ban? I thought it's a private matter. Does Facebook have a list of all banned developers?
He published the info on the internet. Will be easy to find using Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He quotes "I must cease and not access the Facebook site(s) and/or services for any reason whatsoever." There is not EOL date in his statement.
It's not the "for life" anothermachine is disputing, it's the "banned." What he received sounds like a simple nastygram. I could send you a letter demanding that you give me your house, but that wouldn't mean that you are obliged to do so.
Why was he banned? I can't seem to find the reason on the reddit page or the developers blog post.
I've never heard of the plugin before, but it looks like it did some of the tedium of clicking on the game status updates for you. (If someone can give a good description, I would love to see it). My guess is that FB doesn't like the software doing this because it means the users aren't doing it themselves, and thus aren't able to see the ads they would have otherwise, cutting down on revenue. The only other reason I…
Also consider that many facebook games operate with a micro-transactional model where you CAN buy stuff with in game currency earned by the 'tedious clicking' but if you want to speed things up, you can buy currency with real cash. If the 'tedious clicking' is mitigated by a plugin, then the pressure to pay real cash is decreased, costing the app developers revenue
So, this plugin reduces facebook's ad revenue, reduces app developer's revenue and if the application uses facebook credits as currency, facebook loses its cut of lost developer revenue as well. Its' not at all surprising that facebook went after it.
Facebook terms of usage https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms Section 3.2: "You will not collect users' content or information, or otherwise access Facebook, using automated means (such as harvesting bots, robots, spiders, or scrapers) without our permission." Seems writing a bot that automatically takes actions on a user's behalf would clearly violate the Facebook terms. Banning bots is perfectly reasonable behaviour…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but it does suck to be banned from the ubiquitous platform in which you've spent time becoming highly specialized. edit: Apparently he developed a browser plugin that doesn't use Facebook's API, so it looks like this may actually be a decent endorsement.
Highly specialized in facebook API? If you are a half decent developer you can easily pick up any API in few days if not in few hours.
Facebook terms of usage https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms Section 3.2: "You will not collect users' content or information, or otherwise access Facebook, using automated means (such as harvesting bots, robots, spiders, or scrapers) without our permission." Seems writing a bot that automatically takes actions on a user's behalf would clearly violate the Facebook terms. Banning bots is perfectly reasonable behaviour…
Just to be picky, wouldn't the users of the plugin be responsible for violating the tos? I'm sure he tests his plugin on facebook, so, bam. gone. but... shouldn't the 135,000 fans who (presumably) use his browser plugin be banned as well? They are clearly violating the tos.
limits his chances of finding employment as a programmer?? Why exactly? Facebook API is s t and no good programmer wants to develop on top of it.
http://shortformblog.tumblr.com/post/15046201810/missing-e-t...
Essentially a plugin got really popular to the point where it was starting to cause problems. Tumblr hasn't gone so far as to get lawyers involved, however, but they have put a message up for regular users of the plugin, suggesting they turn it off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He quotes "I must cease and not access the Facebook site(s) and/or services for any reason whatsoever." There is not EOL date in his statement.
It's not the "for life" anothermachine is disputing, it's the "banned." What he received sounds like a simple nastygram. I could send you a letter demanding that you give me your house, but that wouldn't mean that you are obliged to do so.
Considering that his only two choices are to leave voluntarily or to be forced out and that Facebook can take down his Facebook pages or ban his IPs on their own, I'm not sure what point there is in arguing over whether or not being given that choice qualifies as being "banned."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These things can bite you when you least expect them. Say you hired him to write a web app and later on the users (or investors, or clients) want to have FB login. Now you need to fire the guy or separate him from the FB login implementation, testing, and use. The guy's got a huge target mark on his ass.
No it's just a cease and desist letter, even if he did comply its not a binding agreement. And even if he did agree facebooks systems are so automated that he would likely recieve an invite to use their systems which would nullify the ban. People banned from casinos often receive invitations to visit the casino which nullify the ban via the casinos marketing efforts.
They're claiming he violated the ToS, which probably is binding. Moreover, they can take direct action to boot him from Facebook.
I think Facebook is being silly here, but I don't see why people appear to think that they wouldn't follow through on their threats.