81–90 of 92 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very well, maybe they're trying to kill Social Fixer because of their TOS. Right now, it seems like this will be the biggest exposure SF gets in its several years of existence, so not the best possible move... Advertisers didn't kill adblock, and they won't kill this. How much revenue and resources they lose before they accept this fact and adapt, is up to them.
Except this isn't a Facebook app - it's a browser extension - and so the Facebook api TOS doesn't apply.
Facebook basically would like to pretend the browser is something like a "trusted client" rather than an inherent unknown.
It's a thing that you do pretending it's for security but, of course, it doesn't work for security but does work reasonably well for the masses aiming to view their own data in the way they like it.
Facebook stands by banning Robert Scoble for downloading the emails of his friend from his account using a script. The difference between a "browser" and "script" is completely arbitrary in the world of bits and bytes but banning "upsupported browsers"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I forbidden from wearing tinted glasses while looking at Facebook as well? After all, they "alter the experience".
If they put that clause in their ToS, and then decided to kick you off Facebook for wearing tinted glasses, they'd be well within their rights.
Anyway, I think it's silly for Facebook to be going after tools that make users like Facebook more, as long as they don't somehow degrade the experience for others (spamming, etc)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they put that clause in their ToS, and then decided to kick you off Facebook for wearing tinted glasses, they'd be well within their rights.
Of course they can kick any Facebook user/group off for any reason, but I suspect they would have a hard time taking any sort of legal action against a plugin (or tinted glasses) that merely changes the way a user's browser interprets the resources loaded from Facebook. Anyway, I think it's silly for Facebook to be going after tools that make users like Facebook more, as long as they don't somehow degrade the experie…
I suspect it has more to do with the fact that many of these tools strip ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course they can kick any Facebook user/group off for any reason, but I suspect they would have a hard time taking any sort of legal action against a plugin (or tinted glasses) that merely changes the way a user's browser interprets the resources loaded from Facebook. Anyway, I think it's silly for Facebook to be going after tools that make users like Facebook more, as long as they don't somehow degrade the experie…
> going after tools that make users like Facebook more I suspect it has more to do with the fact that many of these tools strip ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's explaining that he never accepted their TOS in the first place, because he never did anything that required him to.
It's pretty hard to develop an app that modifies the way a site is displayed to logged in users without being logged in to the site yourself...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty hard to develop an app that modifies the way a site is displayed to logged in users without being logged in to the site yourself...
http://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/upside-down-ternet.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You can't expect Facebook to allow products which deliberately violate their TOS to be hosted/promoted/advertised on Facebook. I certainly can (and do) expect humanity and rational thought to take priority over cold application of The Rules Über Alles - and any instances of the latter deserve to be called out for the silliness that they are. Further, it's not like Facebook didn't know about this until now. Social Fi…
FB, Google, Amazon etc aren't humanitarian organizations or charity. They are in the business of providing a product, and making money while doing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FB, Google, Amazon etc aren't humanitarian organizations or charity. They are in the business of providing a product, and making money while doing it.
Which has what to do with the price of tea in china?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would it be illegal to remove pages from their own platform that alter Facebook's appearance? As far as enforceability, that seems demonstrably false based on this post.
Um, I never said that anybody did anything illegal. In fact, that was the central point of my comment. SF-guy can write his app, I can use it, and FB can delete his FB pages. No laws broken.
That was In response to "It is against Facebook tos to create or use extensions that alter the experience".
When you say "that doesn't make it legal", does that not imply you think something is illegal....? Regardless, I see from your comment that you weren't talking about the page removal, but rather going on a tangent about the legality / enforceability of the ban on creating and using extensions that alter Facebook (as opposed to banning pages n Facebook that promote these extensions). We're on total agreement on that.