Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

socialfixer.com

21–30 of 103 posts

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#21
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 mentality of many investors and companies these days.

I don't like that attitude. I'm not looking to get rich quick. I'm looking to do cool and interesting things. And if I get richer in the long term, all the better.

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#22
post #12

The real fix is not to use Facebook in the first place.

Yup! That is what I finally fell back to. At first I was worrying about all the stuff that I will miss but realized that as long as I was worrying I will never stop using Facebook. Btw, do you still use Facebook?

I haven't had an account in years. I stopped when they started playing games with their privacy settings.

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#23
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.

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

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#24
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.

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

What makes you say that?

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#25
post #10
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that you are the creator of the Social Fixer extension. Your writing mentions this interesting piece: http://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/the-end-of-the-power-u... I am just waiting for a more powerful entity like Google or Facebook to take on Ad-block, that's when it'll get really interesting. I'm guessing Facebook is just testing the waters for now by taking you on, and demanding you to take down ad-blockin…

> I am just waiting for a more powerful entity like Google or Facebook to take on Ad-block, that's when it'll get really interesting. https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads Tl;dr: Google pays Adblock Plus to mark Google ads "acceptable". Google ads are whitelisted from adblocking.

I don't use Adblock (I am a NoScript man) but I never knew that! Thanks for the info.

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#26
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?

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#27
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_...

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#28
post #18

About 6yrs ago my friend made a script, which was essentially a pyramid scheme for adding friends. Basically it helps you find other people who want to add you, to inflate each other's egos. It blew up & I was called in to fix the performance, part of that entailed moving it to my server - about a week later Facebook sent me a cease & desist & demanded the domain name be transferred to them. Pretty lame move on their…

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"?

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent deleted the message so your reply got me curious. Could you clarify ?

johnchristopher - I have deleted it because it's not working properly. mattkruse - TOMODO.com is a platform that enables anyone to modify any existing website by injecting JS/CSS. Unlike browser extensions the injection happens in server side so the client doesn't need to install anything, additionally it's supports all browser and platforms. Since the Mod was created using your original code but not by you, if you w…

TOMODO.com Interesting Idea but I think I’ll pass… All my HN clicks views and votes would go through your site first. You know I’m just not that trusting. Not to mention with mass adoption it could render HN’s algorithms useless.

Re: Facebook Requires Social Fixer Browser Extension to Remove Features

#30
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…

The BEST way to satisfy the stockholders is to create a fantastic product that users love, long-term.

In other words, you agree with me that a publicly traded company must make decisions that benefit the stockholders. You just think that "benefit the stockholders" should be evaluated on a long-term basis, not a short-term basis. But there are two key points that you have not mentioned:

(1) Creating a fantastic product that users love benefits the stockholders to the extent that users are a source of revenue. In Amazon's case, they are, directly; revenue comes from users coming to the site and buying stuff. (And from buying services like Amazon Prime.) In FB's case, users are, at best, an indirect revenue source: more users spending more time on FB means more ad revenue. That's a much weaker link between a good user experience and stockholder benefit.

(2) How long-term the calculation of "stockholder benefit" should be depends on the stockholder's time horizon. If I'm investing in a company as a means of giving myself retirement income in 30 years, obviously I'm interested in the company's long-term health, not the next quarter's returns. But if I'm investing on a shorter time horizon, I'm going to want benefits to show up more quickly.

Half a century ago, most stock ownership was by individuals, so the scenario of someone buying shares in, say, IBM and holding them until retirement was actually common enough to have a significant effect. But now most stock ownership is by mutual funds; my 30-year retirement income doesn't depend on how any single stock does for 30 years, only on how my mutual fund does over that time horizon. Mutual funds trade individual stocks all the time based on short-term performance, so to the companies, it looks like everyone's time horizon is a lot shorter, and they act accordingly.

I'm not looking to get rich quick. I'm looking to do cool and interesting things.

Just to be clear, I am not saying you are wrong at all in having this attitude. I am only commenting on the difference between what you want to do and what Facebook wants to do.

Post reply on HN