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

Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

socialfixer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 103 posts

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#31

Post by pdonis »

mattkruse wrote: post #21
pdonis wrote: post #9

From the article: every user I talk to now seems to think that Facebook is going downhill and increasingly making decisions that benefit their stock holders rather than their users Why would you expect them not to? Facebook is a publicly traded company; they have to make decisions that benefit their stockholders or they will go bankrupt. Also, Facebook's users are not customers; Facebook gets its revenue from ads, no…

>Facebook is a publicly traded company; they have to make decisions that benefit their stockholders or they will go bankrupt. This is a very short-sighted view, common to many companies. The BEST way to satisfy the stockholders is to create a fantastic product that users love, long-term. Example: Amazon. Unless your primary interest is creating a short-term bubble and profiting before it pops, which seems to be the m…

Unless your primary interest is creating a short-term bubble and profiting before it pops

I don't think that's FB's primary interest, exactly: I think FB's primary interest is in capturing an overwhelming market share in social media during the window of opportunity when that market, worldwide, is not yet saturated. But that ends up making them do many of the same things they would do if their primary interest were creating a short-term bubble and then profiting before it pops.

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#32

Post by babs474 »

SquareWheel wrote: post #27
babs474 wrote: post #20

Watch out, when I ran into a similar situation with my extension, unedditreddit. Reddit, was able to convince google to simply remove the the extension from the webstore. Chrome makes it really difficult to install a non app store extension, so your normal user will not do it. On the other hand, google and facebook have a more competitive relationship so maybe there is less to worry about.

The admins asked you to remove unedditreddit years ago[1]. And for good reason. It was disrespectful to bring the tool back online after saying you'd disable it, especially when you started charging for it. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/etd52/lets_have_...

1. It wasn't disrespectful. The previous version which you refer to directly interacted with reddit servers. I said I would no longer crawl reddit and I do not.

2. There is nothing wrong with charging for something you have built, but you can check out a free version of similar tool here http://uneddit.com/faq.php it also does a good job of raising some points from my line of thinking.

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#33

Post by babs474 »

Tomdarkness wrote: post #26
babs474 wrote: post #20

Watch out, when I ran into a similar situation with my extension, unedditreddit. Reddit, was able to convince google to simply remove the the extension from the webstore. Chrome makes it really difficult to install a non app store extension, so your normal user will not do it. On the other hand, google and facebook have a more competitive relationship so maybe there is less to worry about.

How do you know Reddit forced Google to remove it? What was your correspondence from Google?

Reddit did not "force" google to remove it, but I know it was at least prompted by reddit. I know this from emails between myself and google.

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#34

Post by mcintyre1994 »

"Even if they left my personal account alone, they could still mark socialfixer.com as being a risky and/or spammy site, like they have done for http://FBPurity.com."

That is seriously disappointing to see. I understand that, like Google and others, they have a right to filter on behalf of their users (and in some cases may be legally obliged to do so), but they're clearly in a position of power and trust in doing so. If they want to tell a user they can't post a site, and that site is neither illegal, risky or spammy, but simply something they dislike, they shouldn't suggest it is. Abuse of user's trust sucks, especially when the reason is this pathetic.

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#35

Post by michaelt »

selmnoo wrote: post #16
jasonlotito wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they have to make decisions that benefit their stockholders I wish the meme that this is the only thing a public company can do would die. It's not true in any way.

I too wish the meme would die, but not because it's not true, rather because it's overused a lot as a reply. As I understand it these companies do in fact have a fiduciary responsibility to make every move be one that benefits their shareholders. Can you please voice your thoughts on how that is not true?

Matthew Yglesias described Amazon as "a charitable organization being run by elements of the investment community for the benefit of consumers." [1]

There are many things Amazon could do to transfer cash from their customers to their shareholders. Bezos justifies not doing these things because he claims there is more value in long term customer loyalty and trust. Because it's a good faith business decision, I don't see Bezos being ousted or sued by shareholders.

Likewise, it would be easy for Facebook to say "we think there's long term value in delivering the best possible experience to users, and if for some users that means using an extension that's fine with us" - it's a good faith business decision, why would they get ousted or sued where Bezos hasn't?

[1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/01/29/amazon_q4_pro...

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#36

Post by selmnoo »

michaelt wrote: post #35
selmnoo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too wish the meme would die, but not because it's not true, rather because it's overused a lot as a reply. As I understand it these companies do in fact have a fiduciary responsibility to make every move be one that benefits their shareholders. Can you please voice your thoughts on how that is not true?

Matthew Yglesias described Amazon as "a charitable organization being run by elements of the investment community for the benefit of consumers." [1] There are many things Amazon could do to transfer cash from their customers to their shareholders. Bezos justifies not doing these things because he claims there is more value in long term customer loyalty and trust. Because it's a good faith business decision, I don't s…

Well, yes, but you're still qualifying the actions building customer loyalty and trust as actions that're ultimately in shareholders' best long-term interest. So the meme in question is just trite, not inaccurate or invalid.

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#37

Post by MichaelApproved »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #34

"Even if they left my personal account alone, they could still mark socialfixer.com as being a risky and/or spammy site, like they have done for http://FBPurity.com." That is seriously disappointing to see. I understand that, like Google and others, they have a right to filter on behalf of their users (and in some cases may be legally obliged to do so), but they're clearly in a position of power and trust in doing so…

It'll take time but I think problems like these (unfair flagging a site as spammy/risky) will eventually land a company in hot water with anti-trust issues. Until that happens, this will kind of abide of trust be more widespread.

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#38

Post by javajosh »

This story should cause outrage among the users and developers (and any potential users and developers) of any software that is like Social Fixer, that is, any software that stores, manipulates, and presents proprietary data in ways that the "owner" (e.g. Facebook) of said data did not intend, for the use of a first party.

The thing that makes the FB legal threats against Social Fixer different, and more troubling than when 3rd party services are shut down, is that Fixer is a "first party" piece of software. It's not helping users syndicate information, or reselling it, or letting anyone else even look at it or use it. I'm just organizing the data that I do have into a format that is more useful to me.

If you accept that there are limits on what we do with our data, where does it stop? Am I allowed to download pictures of my friends and view them in programs that do not display ads? Am I allowed to store and search my own messages, or my friends' messages, in a program that does not notify Facebook or display their ads? If I have an Excel Spreadsheet with friends addresses and phone numbers gleaned from Facebook profiles, have I broken the law?

I can understand Facebook's concern. If it suddenly became common to run programs like this over Facebook's site, then the "user experience" will suddenly get completely out of FB's control. People might not become immune to tracking, but neither would they no longer be manipulated by feed algorithms.

FB has about as much right to control what I do with the messages my friends send to me on Facebook as Google has to control what I do with my email. It doesn't matter if the "messaging protocol" is screen-scraped from the DOM.

The key over-reaching provision is this gem: "You will not do anything that could disable, overburden, or impair the proper working or appearance of Facebook, such as a denial of service attack or interference with page rendering or other Facebook functionality."[1]

Does changing my browser window size "interfere with page rendering"? What about changing font? Or user styles? Or Ad Blocker? What if I switch browsers? What if that browser renders Facebook poorly or not at all, am I in violation? If I edit the DOM in Firebug or Inspector should I get sued?

Going after people who make tools that help me organize, manage, and control my consumption of the Internet firehose is absolutely wrong. If the Justice system supports Facebook's claim (which very well could happen) then the only alternative is to stop using Facebook, and any other 3rd party that claims not only ownership of the data you disseminate on it, but claims the right to limit your ability to organize and read your own inbox.

[1] https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms Section 3.11

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#39

Post by pdonis »

michaelt wrote: post #35
selmnoo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too wish the meme would die, but not because it's not true, rather because it's overused a lot as a reply. As I understand it these companies do in fact have a fiduciary responsibility to make every move be one that benefits their shareholders. Can you please voice your thoughts on how that is not true?

Matthew Yglesias described Amazon as "a charitable organization being run by elements of the investment community for the benefit of consumers." [1] There are many things Amazon could do to transfer cash from their customers to their shareholders. Bezos justifies not doing these things because he claims there is more value in long term customer loyalty and trust. Because it's a good faith business decision, I don't s…

it would be easy for Facebook to say "we think there's long term value in delivering the best possible experience to users, and if for some users that means using an extension that's fine with us"

It would be easy for them to say it, but first they would have to believe it, and second they would have to believe they could convince investors of it.

it's a good faith business decision, why would they get ousted or sued where Bezos hasn't?

It's not a question of being sued, it's a question of having the stock price go down. Investors don't have to sue to do that; they just have to sell.

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#40

Post by casca »

Social Fixer is great - I've been using it for a while and it makes my infrequent forays onto Facebook less miserable. From what I can tell, Facebook has removed the Social Fixer page on Facebook and are requiring the author to make significant changes in order to return it. The author is going to make those changes.

Why not just lose the page on Facebook and keep developing Social Fixer? If they threaten legal action, throw the code on Github and stop development on it under your own name. Or put it in an LLC or equivalent and just liquidate if they sue. Why does capitulation seem to be the most appealing option?

Post reply on HN