Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#41

Post by tedunangst » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 9:16 PM UTC

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…

Since the extension blocks ads, which are the primary source of Facebook income, it doesn't seem totally ridiculous for them to claim the extension is reducing their long term value.

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#42

Post by tedunangst » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 9:19 PM UTC

javajosh wrote: post #38

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 th…

Doesn't Facebook have some right to choose what type of content they want to host? The only thing that's happened is Facebook has decided they don't want to host his page.

[Er, oops. Ignore this part. Reading fail] I mean, seriously. FBI? What do they have to do with this?

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#43

Post by md224 » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 9:21 PM UTC

tedunangst wrote: post #42

javajosh wrote: post #38

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 th…

Doesn't Facebook have some right to choose what type of content they want to host? The only thing that's happened is Facebook has decided they don't want to host his page. [Er, oops. Ignore this part. Reading fail] I mean, seriously. FBI? What do they have to do with this?

> I mean, seriously. FBI? What do they have to do with this?

I think you might've misread "FB"...

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#44

Post by tedunangst » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 9:21 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #28

seiji wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize any non-law entity can't forcibly compel you to do things, right? They can talk a big game, but it's up to them to file legal proceedings if they really want to shut you down.

How is "we can force you into bankruptcy by suing you" all that less forcible than "the government will fine you"?

Is Facebook suing him?

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#45

Post by troels » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 9:22 PM UTC

tedunangst wrote: post #42

javajosh wrote: post #38

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 th…

Doesn't Facebook have some right to choose what type of content they want to host? The only thing that's happened is Facebook has decided they don't want to host his page. [Er, oops. Ignore this part. Reading fail] I mean, seriously. FBI? What do they have to do with this?

They also threatened with legal action.

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#46

Post by tedunangst » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 9:27 PM UTC

md224 wrote: post #43

tedunangst wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't Facebook have some right to choose what type of content they want to host? The only thing that's happened is Facebook has decided they don't want to host his page. [Er, oops. Ignore this part. Reading fail] I mean, seriously. FBI? What do they have to do with this?

> I mean, seriously. FBI? What do they have to do with this? I think you might've misread "FB"...

Yeah. Enough people start thinking the FBI is out to get them, and then I start thinking everybody thinks the FBI is out to get them.

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#47

Post by ceol » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 9:28 PM UTC

babs474 wrote: post #24

seeingfurther wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$4.00 a month to read edited comments is why they went after you.

What makes you say that?

You used their trademarked brand name in a product and URL for that product. That's a huge mistake.

Plus there's the whole issue with your app sidestepping reddit's "delete", "remove", "edit", and "private subreddit" functionality. Those things exist for very good reasons and are nothing like what Social Fixer did.

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#48

Post by ksrm » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 9:30 PM UTC

blibble wrote: post #11

the solution to this sort of thing is to always wrap yourself in a limited company... company formation in the UK costs around £20 and then you're personally immune to this sort of legal bullying

How so?

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#49

Post by RexRollman » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 9:39 PM UTC

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 gets its revenue from ads"

It is interesting to think about today's big tech companies and how they make a majority of their money.

Facebook, Google, and Twitter = advertising. Microsoft = software. Apple = hardware.

Of the three companies who make most of their money from advertising, Twitter seems to be the most ethical, although going public might change that (Facebook is creating profiles of non-Facebook users and it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that Google is creating profiles of people who email Gmail users but don't have Google accounts).

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#50

Post by babs474 » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 9:58 PM UTC

ceol wrote: post #47

babs474 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you say that?

You used their trademarked brand name in a product and URL for that product. That's a huge mistake. Plus there's the whole issue with your app sidestepping reddit's "delete", "remove", "edit", and "private subreddit" functionality. Those things exist for very good reasons and are nothing like what Social Fixer did.

You might have a point about naming, I don't know. In my defense a bunch of reddit tools do the same thing: metareddit.com, uneddit.com, redditenhancementsuite.com

But I'm really curious about what you said regarding sidestepping delete functionality. How do you view search engines indexing and caching of reddit and other sites? Does the Barbara Streisand effect apply? I think that the issue is way more nuanced than no "sidesteppping" allowed.

One of my main motivations for creating unedditreddit was noticing that there was a lot of baloney moderation going on. Cabals of power users can censor quite a bit and it is completely opaque as to who deleted something and for what. I think it could damage the community in the same way digg vote rings used to.