4 ms·
That would grant the app access to those permissions, not the companies. Oh hey, would you look at that: https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/14/16143354/facebook-m
by InclinedPlane 8y ago
That would grant the app access to those permissions, not the companies.
Oh hey, would you look at that: https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/14/16143354/facebook-messenger-spotify-recommendations-find-music https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/14/16143354/facebook-messeng...
- skybrian 8y agoI'm a bit worried that some journalists (and some readers) no longer care to make any distinction between an app having access for legitimate reasons that respect users' intentions and the whole company having access to do whatever they like. At least, they don't explain it well.
- thaumasiotes 8y agoThe distinction doesn't exist in practical terms. The company controls the behavior of the app; the fact that an app has access for legitimate reasons doesn't mean that any given use of the access was for legitimate reasons.
- skybrian 8y agoI don't think this article made the case that the access granted was unreasonable.
- UncleMeat 8y agoMark my words. There is going to be an article that grossly misunderstands oauth and tells people that facebook, twitter, etc, are all giving access user information to third party's willy nilly and that there is an entire system widely used across the web for encouraging this sort of behavior.