3 ms·
Technically, it would be not too difficult to use Facebooks API and some scraping and make it connect to gnusocial for example. But it is explicitly against the
by captainmuon 11y ago
Technically, it would be not too difficult to use Facebooks API and some scraping and make it connect to gnusocial for example. But it is explicitly against the TOS (of the API and Facebook itself) to do so, so you can't.
I would be really, really happy if lawmakers would realize that Facebook (just one example of many) has now become infrastructure, and has to be regulated as such. What to do? Make every service with more than, say, a million users required to offer federation. There must be an API, and everybody must be able to get their data in and out free of charge, and there should be no limitations (except for fighting spam).
This way, Facebook would loose their network effect which makes it impossible for a competitor to be successful. They would still have their users, rich features, mature codebase, and infrastructure as an advantage, so this will not drive them out of business. But they will be forced to compete with others on terms of user-friendliness, features, non-invasiveness and so on.
Here's an idea. The next time you invent a nifty protocol for social, don't make it proprietary. Don't release the source under copyleft either. Make a license such as: "You may use this protocol / implementation free of charge in any way you like (source closed or open) under one condition: you have to offer federation."
(* Federation means that users with accounts on different services can communicate freely, like it is the case with email. Imagine you could use your Twitter account and write to a friend's Facebook wall. Or you could even host your own gnusocial instance and use it to take part in other social networks.)
- egeozcan 11y ago> Make every service with more than, say, a million users required to offer federation. There must be an API, and everybody must be able to get their data in and out free of charge, and there should be no limitations (except for fighting spam). I totally agree. Setting a minimum of users would also help the controlling of the system and the startups getting on their feet immensely. > "You may use this protocol / implementation free of charge in any way you like (source closed or open) under one condition: you have to offer federation." I'm not working on a protocol but I wonder if such a license already exists. I would financially contribute if one were to hire a bunch of lawyers to write one.
- toothbrush 11y agoI would love the crap out of whoever managed to swing that. I'd never thought of it that way, actually, but you've hit the nail on the head as far as the intersection of network effect and therefore counting as infrastructure goes. One can only hope!
- SoMuchToGrok 11y agoI'm not certain if forcing businesses to comply with custom-tailored laws is more ethical than businesses forcing customers to comply with restrictions. Neither of these outcomes is an ideal solution. Getting lawmakers involved is a very poor move, and only opens the door for more foul-play and market manipulation. At this point in time, why are we not content with no solution to this problem? Things take time to resolve - and we certainly don't need to be jumping the gun by getting lawmakers involved.
- ams6110 11y agoThe problem is that Facebook is not essential infrastructure. Government has no business regulating it.
- yoshuaw 11y agoAnything above the first tier of Maslow's pyramid is not essential. Ask yourself: do we as a society benefit if Facebook uses open protocols? Law should facilitate society's needs, not the other way around.
- andrewflnr 11y agoThis is an incredibly dangerous position to take. It can be used to justify almost any law. A law is a threat of force or violence. Law is the code executed by people with lethal weapons and the authority to use them. Choose them accordingly.