Facebook account now required to login to Oculus devices

Post by raxxorrax » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:55 AM UTC

Guthur wrote: post #753

sharkweek wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My moral compass would get real wobbly if I had (insert some unfathomable number here) in my bank account following an acquisition. Probably not a great thing to confess to but I doubt I’d find myself caring what my acquirer was doing with their new real estate.

There is nothing immoral about a lawful business transaction to purchase a VR company. If this device required some signing of an EULA that has given away all your consumer rights then the onus is on you, no one forced you to buy it and many organisations and individuals have been warning about these business practices unheeded. As an anecdotal example, many companies are now using instagram for image hosting that pe…

Post by tass » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 7:08 AM UTC

dleslie wrote: post #701

esperent wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo allow other stores on their consoles? Good idea, let's make that a requirement too. The law could be something like "if you sell a general purpose computing device, you're not allowed to mandate software vendor lockin". That would open up so many possibilities, it would be great for the people who own consoles.

Video game consoles are not general computing devices. Their controlled and curated walled gardens are part of the consumer appeal, and the absence of those would make consoles no different than PCs. If consumers wanted that they'd be buying PCs only.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 7:16 AM UTC

thomasahle wrote: post #775

IncRnd wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's closer to what I've done, but in practice that also lowers the value of the company. There is a sweet spot you have to hit of giving up control. Just because you ask for something doesn't mean you will get it. In fact, you normally don't have the advantage in these types of sales, so you don't get to specify these things.

> In fact, you normally don't have the advantage in these types of sales, so you don't get to specify these things. You could always so no and just continue running your company? Even if you really do want to get out, you can probably get in some conditions if you are willing to reduce the price. That's what I would assume at least

Post by monadic2 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 7:20 AM UTC

slim wrote: post #210

AlexandrB wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exhibit n + 1 on why when you're acquired you're not in a position to promise anything to anyone despite any assurances from the acquirer. Or, from the consumer's side, why those promises should carry no weight.

unless you flex your cryptoanarchist power and enshrine strong encryption into your architecture. what WhatsApp did. make it costly for the new owner to change their minds.

Post by ogurechny » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 7:28 AM UTC

Marsymars wrote: post #696

ForHackernews wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In short, no. Facebook has gotten very good at catching and deleting "fake" accounts. Back in the day, I worked on an application that used Facebook's Graph API and I needed to create some bogus accounts for testing, but they were consistently blocked within days. Using some combination of behaviour analysis, flagging new and/or cookie-less browsers, and (I suspect) human review FB have gone to great lengths to try a…

> Using some combination of behaviour analysis, flagging new and/or cookie-less browsers, and (I suspect) human review FB have gone to great lengths to try and assure their customers that all humans have one and only one account under their true legal name and biographical details. They're not very good at that. A pretty big chunk of people I have as friends have fake names, some of them even after me reporting their…