3 ms·

Update: a second response from FB https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/12/facebooks-messaging-partnerships/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/12/facebooks-messagin

Update: a second response from FB https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/12/facebooks-messaging-partnerships/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/12/facebooks-messaging-par... It has screenshots of the messaging functionality but no clarification on how permissions were granted for this, as discussed elsewhere on this thread.

ddalex 8y ago
Reading this post, it simply misleads about how deep things happened: they want to say that apps had access only when logged in, carefully phasing around the fact that the apps had offline access too. Also, "they pinky promised to limit their functionality", not "we had controls in place so any of their data reads and writes was clearly trackable and labeled as such, and they couldn't download everything". Basically their defense is: You trusted FB with data, dumb fucks.
- miracle2k 8y ago
  This is not about logged in or offline. Facebook is giving fairly precise technical information about what happened. The New York Times is being as coy as possible, using obfuscating language, to ensure it's readers do not understand what happened but assume the worst. The reality is that Facebook allowed me to send messages from within Spotify, when and if I agreed to grant that access to Spotify. That's the baseline.