31–40 of 92 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that mean https://www.facebook.com/adblockplus is next?
AdBlock Plus doesn't block Facebook ads for me. Am I using it wrong?
It is also against Facebook TOS to create or use browser extensions to alter the Facebook experience. This has been the rule for many years. The fact that this page and extension did not get banned sooner is the real story.
It is also against Facebook TOS to create or use browser extensions to alter the Facebook experience. This has been the rule for many years. The fact that this page and extension did not get banned sooner is the real story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tend to have a lot of problems with the way Facebook operates (mostly involving how they treat their users), but they seem pretty reasonable in this case. How is it draconian to not allow a Page on your platform that (among other things) blocks your source of revenue? (social fixer allows blocking Facebook ads)
So does Adblock Plus, so does Noscript, so do the content filtering features of major browsers, yet those all have major pages. Blocking the people is just plain dickery on Facebook's part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can write that in their terms & conditions all they like, but it doesn't make it legal or enforceable.
Apparently it does make it enforceable as they removed his page. Unfortunately when you're on someones platform you're at their mercy, they can delete your page for some minor infraction and you've got very little recourse.
It is also against Facebook TOS to create or use browser extensions to alter the Facebook experience. This has been the rule for many years. The fact that this page and extension did not get banned sooner is the real story.
Am I forbidden from wearing tinted glasses while looking at Facebook as well? After all, they "alter the experience".
The correct analogy would be:
Q) Am I forbidden from writing an application using the facebook API that tints/alters the color of the website?
A) Yes, you are forbidden from doing that.
It is also against Facebook TOS to create or use browser extensions to alter the Facebook experience. This has been the rule for many years. The fact that this page and extension did not get banned sooner is the real story.
Am I forbidden from wearing tinted glasses while looking at Facebook as well? After all, they "alter the experience".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I for one am tired of people being shouted down because they dared take issue with draconian policies. You speak of Facebook as though it's a democracy or a public service. Facebook is a business, not a charity, and not a humanitarian enterprise.
You open to the public, you open yourself up to public criticism. The way the business is run is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, this sucks, and complaining (loudly) is the way to get it fixed.
Yes, but not public control or public voting on policies.
> The fact of the matter is, this sucks, and complaining (loudly) is the way to get it fixed.
You think businesses deserve to be controlled by the loudest voice among its detractors? If that were true, Tesla would be out of business -- it has many quiet fans, and a few loud detractors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I forbidden from wearing tinted glasses while looking at Facebook as well? After all, they "alter the experience".
I understand your point, however that isn't quite a valid analogy in this case. The correct analogy would be: Q) Am I forbidden from writing an application using the facebook API that tints/alters the color of the website? A) Yes, you are forbidden from doing that.