4 ms·

Facebook claims that Facebook suspended the apps because their CEO claimed that they will. Meanwhile, they offer no real evidence of doing so, not even a list

by r3bl 8y ago

Facebook claims that Facebook suspended the apps because their CEO claimed that they will. Meanwhile, they offer no real evidence of doing so, not even a list of names. Just a number. And even that number isn't exact, since it's around 200 out of "thousands", which is by itself a ridiculously high percentage. Also, why the fuck would you first suspend 200 apps, publish a blog post, and then investigate what they did with the said data? Can you imagine any other app store denying service to 200 teams or individuals and then investigate any possible wrongdoings?

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>Can you imagine any other app store denying service to 200 teams or individuals and then investigate any possible wrongdoings? The government does stuff like that all the time although usually it's ~200 people over the course of a year or two, not all at once. It's something along the lines of "Whoops, looks like CPS wasn't actually doing their jobs right and we took 200 kids from otherwise not too terrible parents, well here's an official apology and a pledge to investigate this internally, don't worry we'll conclude we did nothing wrong. Maybe if we feel really guilty we'll force someone to retire a year early or something." You can replace the above with other examples of systemic mistreatment if you want. Sleazy utility providers and businesses with local monopoly do similar but not quite so bad things and nobody gets any recourse unless they get a check from a class action. These kind of things typically makes the state or regional news for a day with maybe a 10sec follow up when the apology is actually issued or they find themselves innocent of wrongdoing. When you have monopoly or near monopoly position there's less accountability and more wiggle room to behave like a jerk.

4 ms·

Facebook claims that Facebook suspended the apps because their CEO claimed that they will. Meanwhile, they offer no real evidence of doing so, not even a list

by r3bl 8y ago

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>Can you imagine any other app store denying service to 200 teams or individuals and then investigate any possible wrongdoings? The government does stuff like that all the time although usually it's ~200 people over the course of a year or two, not all at once. It's something along the lines of "Whoops, looks like CPS wasn't actually doing their jobs right and we took 200 kids from otherwise not too terrible parents, well here's an official apology and a pledge to investigate this internally, don't worry we'll conclude we did nothing wrong. Maybe if we feel really guilty we'll force someone to retire a year early or something." You can replace the above with other examples of systemic mistreatment if you want. Sleazy utility providers and businesses with local monopoly do similar but not quite so bad things and nobody gets any recourse unless they get a check from a class action. These kind of things typically makes the state or regional news for a day with maybe a 10sec follow up when the apology is actually issued or they find themselves innocent of wrongdoing. When you have monopoly or near monopoly position there's less accountability and more wiggle room to behave like a jerk.