4 ms·
I think you're misunderstanding. I'm not proposing that Facebook be _forced_ to allow third-party access, which would carry the risks you've pointed out. I'm si
by kauffj 8y ago
I think you're misunderstanding. I'm not proposing that Facebook be _forced_ to allow third-party access, which would carry the risks you've pointed out. I'm simply proposing the federal government not aid them in their market dominance.
Facebook could still prevent third-party applications from functioning, but it would have to do so by methods inside of the HTTP specification rather than legal ones. For example, it could simply ban users who authenticate via a third-party app.
- taurath 8y agoIt seems like the argument is for large-scale IP protection reform. What one could do there is create an actual new class of asset in "data" with different rules so that traditional asset law doesn't apply.
- B-Con 8y agoWhat's the difference? If it's desirable to reserve the right to disallow third-party frontends, why push the burden onto them (and everyone else) enforcing it through technical measures?
- eli_gottlieb 8y agoBecause with technical measures, the cost is allocated to the party who benefits from vendor lock-in, rather than to the public.