11 ms·

> In the EU all bank accounts are now required to have an API. This has massively reduced the power of incumbent banks, allowing for rapid innovation in the ban

> In the EU all bank accounts are now required to have an API. This has massively reduced the power of incumbent banks, allowing for rapid innovation in the banking and payments sector. The same would and could happen if platform such as Facebook and Twitter were required to have an API. I agree with the author's assertion of a problem, but this is really confusing. Both Facebook and Twitter DO have APIs. Granted the APIs are proprietary and subject to significant restrictions on acceptable use and functionality. However, providing even a full-featured API doesn't change the effect of the platforms owning a person's user account and persona, or their ability to suck people in to waste countless hours watching their ad targeting feed algorithms. Only true decentralization of social graph hosting will really address the core issue of centralized power.

cameronbrown 7y ago
Forcing Facebook and Twitter to have truly open APIs would be amazing. We'd have everything from custom clients, custom News Feed algorithms and much more.. Heck, they can even require ads to be served, the point is we'd be in a far better situation than we are now.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- brenden2 7y ago
  We're more likely to see new networks with open APIs than trying to convince a leopard to change its spots.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Forcing Facebook to have truly open API means forcing them to allow Cambridge Analytica to vacuum up everyone's data.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    Open API doesn't mean all data available to everyone all the time. You'd still have ACLs and privacy options. It would just mean that the data and interactions you as a user already have in Facebook's proprietary walled garden, would be API callable from 3rd parties. Today you cannot see my FB page if we're not friends, an open API wouldn't allow you to access my data either. If we were friends, you could use your custom FB client to look at my page though, which would be very user friendly.
    - traek 7y ago
      > It would just mean that the data and interactions you as a user already have in Facebook's proprietary walled garden, would be API callable from 3rd parties. This was precisely the level of access which caused the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
      - shkkmo 7y ago
        In what way? They were not using user level permissions.
        traek 7y ago
        Yes, they were. https://www.vox.com/2018/3/17/17134072/facebook-cambridge-analytica-trump-explained-user-data https://www.vox.com/2018/3/17/17134072/facebook-cambridge-an...
        shkkmo 7y ago
        > Facebook also allowed developers to collect some information on the friend networks of people who used Facebook Login. So no, Cambridge Analytics did not have API access to everything that that that the users who used Facebook login had access to. This was a specific set of permissions granted to apps with which users used their Facebook identities as login identities.
        SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - scarecrowbob 7y ago
    I don't see how this is true any more than it is for a bank API. I just want API access to the content --I wrote-- that they are monetizing (even if it's just a lure to get my friends on their platform), and if my friends grant me access to something they have written or shared, the API should allow that. I agree that there are likely ways this can be used to do all kinds of terrible thing. But so could bank APIs.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      And that was the full set of things that Cambridge Analytica got API access to; the data of people who authorized the app, and any data their friends shared with them. (In fact, they actually got a bit less than that; for instance, Facebook had already locked down the API to prevent apps from seeing email addresses.) If you’re taking the position that Cambridge Analytica wasn’t actually that bad, and it’s worth the trade for a better developer experience, I think that’s an intensely unpopular but defensible claim.
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        > If you’re taking the position that Cambridge Analytica wasn’t actually that bad, and it’s worth the trade for a better developer experience, I think that’s an intensely unpopular but defensible claim. I'll take that position. The media made a huge deal out of Cambridge Analytica but it didn't impact FB usage at all, so I don't think it's as intensely unpopular as you suggest. On most social media services, your friend list is public. I think people who feel that's somehow sensitive information shouldn't be on social media in the first place because there's nothing stopping any one of their friends from sharing all of your info with whoever they want.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
    No, in the same way that an open bank API doesn't mean allowing thieves to vacuum up everyone's money. Open API != open data.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      In this context it does mean open data. Facebook already provides APIs for looking at your own stuff; to develop a custom client or such, it’s other people’s data that you’d need an API for.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Just to be clear, you don't really mean forcing FB to have an API that would let anyone access any piece of data on FB do you? I mean, you're advocating for an open API to let people access maybe some public photos and such, but nothing private and no personally identifiable connection information right? Just as a matter of full disclosure, I believe anything sensitive should require explicit consent of the user for each bit of data you download from their profile. I don't believe in radically open data APIs on FB because there is a bit of an argument to be made that it's not FBs data, it's that user's data. If she doesn't want to give the world access to her messages to her lover there should certainly be no API level method that overrides her intentions there.
- holler 7y ago
  I don't see how this would encourage competition?
  - Finnucane 7y ago
    It doesn't. He's glossing over the problem of antitrust needs. An open API would still leave FB in a near-monopolistic control of social data. The FAANG companies can easily buy up and squash potential competitors because for the last few decades government has taken a very narrow view of antitrust with little enforcement effort.

cameronbrown 7y ago

Forcing Facebook and Twitter to have truly open APIs would be amazing. We'd have everything from custom clients, custom News Feed algorithms and much more.. Heck, they can even require ads to be served, the point is we'd be in a far better situation than we are now.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
brenden2 7y ago
We're more likely to see new networks with open APIs than trying to convince a leopard to change its spots.
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
Forcing Facebook to have truly open API means forcing them to allow Cambridge Analytica to vacuum up everyone's data.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  Open API doesn't mean all data available to everyone all the time. You'd still have ACLs and privacy options. It would just mean that the data and interactions you as a user already have in Facebook's proprietary walled garden, would be API callable from 3rd parties. Today you cannot see my FB page if we're not friends, an open API wouldn't allow you to access my data either. If we were friends, you could use your custom FB client to look at my page though, which would be very user friendly.
  - traek 7y ago
    > It would just mean that the data and interactions you as a user already have in Facebook's proprietary walled garden, would be API callable from 3rd parties. This was precisely the level of access which caused the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      In what way? They were not using user level permissions.
      - traek 7y ago
        Yes, they were. https://www.vox.com/2018/3/17/17134072/facebook-cambridge-analytica-trump-explained-user-data https://www.vox.com/2018/3/17/17134072/facebook-cambridge-an...
        shkkmo 7y ago
        > Facebook also allowed developers to collect some information on the friend networks of people who used Facebook Login. So no, Cambridge Analytics did not have API access to everything that that that the users who used Facebook login had access to. This was a specific set of permissions granted to apps with which users used their Facebook identities as login identities.
        SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- scarecrowbob 7y ago
  I don't see how this is true any more than it is for a bank API. I just want API access to the content --I wrote-- that they are monetizing (even if it's just a lure to get my friends on their platform), and if my friends grant me access to something they have written or shared, the API should allow that. I agree that there are likely ways this can be used to do all kinds of terrible thing. But so could bank APIs.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    And that was the full set of things that Cambridge Analytica got API access to; the data of people who authorized the app, and any data their friends shared with them. (In fact, they actually got a bit less than that; for instance, Facebook had already locked down the API to prevent apps from seeing email addresses.) If you’re taking the position that Cambridge Analytica wasn’t actually that bad, and it’s worth the trade for a better developer experience, I think that’s an intensely unpopular but defensible claim.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      > If you’re taking the position that Cambridge Analytica wasn’t actually that bad, and it’s worth the trade for a better developer experience, I think that’s an intensely unpopular but defensible claim. I'll take that position. The media made a huge deal out of Cambridge Analytica but it didn't impact FB usage at all, so I don't think it's as intensely unpopular as you suggest. On most social media services, your friend list is public. I think people who feel that's somehow sensitive information shouldn't be on social media in the first place because there's nothing stopping any one of their friends from sharing all of your info with whoever they want.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  No, in the same way that an open bank API doesn't mean allowing thieves to vacuum up everyone's money. Open API != open data.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    In this context it does mean open data. Facebook already provides APIs for looking at your own stuff; to develop a custom client or such, it’s other people’s data that you’d need an API for.
bilbo0s 7y ago
Just to be clear, you don't really mean forcing FB to have an API that would let anyone access any piece of data on FB do you? I mean, you're advocating for an open API to let people access maybe some public photos and such, but nothing private and no personally identifiable connection information right? Just as a matter of full disclosure, I believe anything sensitive should require explicit consent of the user for each bit of data you download from their profile. I don't believe in radically open data APIs on FB because there is a bit of an argument to be made that it's not FBs data, it's that user's data. If she doesn't want to give the world access to her messages to her lover there should certainly be no API level method that overrides her intentions there.
holler 7y ago
I don't see how this would encourage competition?
- Finnucane 7y ago
  It doesn't. He's glossing over the problem of antitrust needs. An open API would still leave FB in a near-monopolistic control of social data. The FAANG companies can easily buy up and squash potential competitors because for the last few decades government has taken a very narrow view of antitrust with little enforcement effort.