5 ms·

This is the best case for users I can think of if social media were forced to allow APIs: Different products/companies exist to fulfill each of these roles: -

by mLuby 7y ago

This is the best case for users I can think of if social media were forced to allow APIs: Different products/companies exist to fulfill each of these roles: - host the firehose of tweets/posts/snaps/grams. Likely the husks of Facebook/Twitter/SnapChat/Instagram. - filter/sort firehose for user given their preferences time/popularity/relevance etc. - GUI to display posts to user by Web/Mobile/VR/SMS/Postcard etc. Aggregate social media readers do (did) this. - GUI to (re)post/comment on/react to/edit/delete user content to the firehose. These already exist: HootSuite/Buffer - firehose analysis for marketing, etc. - firehose-level moderation/flagging/censorship/tagging The problem is there is far more user value in vertically integrating some or all of these functions than there is in keeping them decentralized. Most users will prefer one product that filter/sorts AND displays posts to two products where one filter/sorts and the other displays.

throwaway381728 7y ago
The problem with open API access is preventing Cambridge Analytica like abuse.
- zpallin 7y ago
  Except Cambridge Analytica occurred in a closed-access scenario. It's a problem either way.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    CA scraped Facebook APIs. It's only "closed" in the sense that you needed an account and token to access the open API.
    - dominotw 7y ago
      > CA scraped Facebook APIs what does it mean to scrape an API. I usually hear that word for html website scraping.
      - myhf 7y ago
        Normal API use is to read information about the people directly interacting with a post or an app, for the purpose of facilitating that interaction. Cambridge Analytica used posts to get API access to all users (and friends-of-friends) who interacted with those posts, in order to incrementally build a copy of the complete social graph. The process is similar to scraping.
        r00fus 7y ago
        This is still an ACL issue - that Facebook allowed CA to pull data they weren’t authorized for doesn’t mean making API access is a bad idea. It increases the attack surface but publicly to everyone.
        Thorrez 7y ago
        If I share some information with a friend of a friend, should that information be viewable by an app that the friend of a friend activated? For Cambridge Analytica, the answer was "yes", so Cambridge Analytica was able to scrape a bunch of stuff. If we make the answer "no", then it won't be possible to build alternate UIs, because the Facebook UI will be able to show my friend of a friend my information, but an alternate UI won't be able to do so.
    - zpallin 7y ago
      Exactly my point. Facebook's APIs were not designed for CA's style of scraping, but they took advantage of it anyway. You can try limiting access to data but infiltrators will find a way to abuse it anyway.
      - bduerst 7y ago
        And that's also my point - you don't accidentally leave an API open. It was purposefully built this way. What CA did with Facebooks API was by design.
vkou 7y ago
This will balkanize the user-base, as we see with Mastodon. You're either going to have every node do redundant work with moderation, or they'll adopt a common blacklist, thus re-centralizing. Operators that fail to self-moderate will be blacklisted by operators that don't, because when 1% of the content broadcast by a node is, say, CP, nobody in their right mind will think twice before blocking it outright.
- deft 7y ago
  Reading the article and the parent comment I'm pretty sure that's the intent. By 'balkanizing' the users, the power is reduced and the network as a cohesive unit of control is dismantled.
  - vkou 7y ago
    Just because the control is decentralized, doesn't mean that it won't be any less insidious. Please look at Mastodon, for an example.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    the question is why the end-user would want balkanization, other than for the abstract reason to limit power, which almost never works (or everyone would be installing firefox right now). People seem to be allergic to balkanization. They want the convenience of typing a search result, a movie title, or a name into the platform instead of having to jump over ten. Even Mastodon with its hybrid model is unable to attract a significant amount of users from Facebook or Twitter. Open APIs probably won't result in significant competition, and even if they do the privacy concerns exist for small companies as much as for larger ones, see Cambridge Analytica which with open APIs would basically roam around freely.
- r00fus 7y ago
  > or they'll adopt a common blacklist, thus re-centralizing You say this like it's a bad thing. A centralized list that's communally owned is a lot more like democracy than a private list that's got "AI/magic" sorting that's intended to raise profits at the expense of society. In fact, government could get involved in legislating not the list, but common sense baselines on how such lists should be administered - setting the groundrules so to speak (mainly to prevent fraud/abuse).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by mLuby 7y ago

throwaway381728 7y ago

The problem with open API access is preventing Cambridge Analytica like abuse.

zpallin 7y ago
Except Cambridge Analytica occurred in a closed-access scenario. It's a problem either way.
- bduerst 7y ago
  CA scraped Facebook APIs. It's only "closed" in the sense that you needed an account and token to access the open API.
  - dominotw 7y ago
    > CA scraped Facebook APIs what does it mean to scrape an API. I usually hear that word for html website scraping.
    - myhf 7y ago
      Normal API use is to read information about the people directly interacting with a post or an app, for the purpose of facilitating that interaction. Cambridge Analytica used posts to get API access to all users (and friends-of-friends) who interacted with those posts, in order to incrementally build a copy of the complete social graph. The process is similar to scraping.
      - r00fus 7y ago
        This is still an ACL issue - that Facebook allowed CA to pull data they weren’t authorized for doesn’t mean making API access is a bad idea. It increases the attack surface but publicly to everyone.
        Thorrez 7y ago
        If I share some information with a friend of a friend, should that information be viewable by an app that the friend of a friend activated? For Cambridge Analytica, the answer was "yes", so Cambridge Analytica was able to scrape a bunch of stuff. If we make the answer "no", then it won't be possible to build alternate UIs, because the Facebook UI will be able to show my friend of a friend my information, but an alternate UI won't be able to do so.
  - zpallin 7y ago
    Exactly my point. Facebook's APIs were not designed for CA's style of scraping, but they took advantage of it anyway. You can try limiting access to data but infiltrators will find a way to abuse it anyway.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      And that's also my point - you don't accidentally leave an API open. It was purposefully built this way. What CA did with Facebooks API was by design.

vkou 7y ago

This will balkanize the user-base, as we see with Mastodon. You're either going to have every node do redundant work with moderation, or they'll adopt a common blacklist, thus re-centralizing. Operators that fail to self-moderate will be blacklisted by operators that don't, because when 1% of the content broadcast by a node is, say, CP, nobody in their right mind will think twice before blocking it outright.

deft 7y ago
Reading the article and the parent comment I'm pretty sure that's the intent. By 'balkanizing' the users, the power is reduced and the network as a cohesive unit of control is dismantled.
- vkou 7y ago
  Just because the control is decentralized, doesn't mean that it won't be any less insidious. Please look at Mastodon, for an example.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  the question is why the end-user would want balkanization, other than for the abstract reason to limit power, which almost never works (or everyone would be installing firefox right now). People seem to be allergic to balkanization. They want the convenience of typing a search result, a movie title, or a name into the platform instead of having to jump over ten. Even Mastodon with its hybrid model is unable to attract a significant amount of users from Facebook or Twitter. Open APIs probably won't result in significant competition, and even if they do the privacy concerns exist for small companies as much as for larger ones, see Cambridge Analytica which with open APIs would basically roam around freely.
r00fus 7y ago
> or they'll adopt a common blacklist, thus re-centralizing You say this like it's a bad thing. A centralized list that's communally owned is a lot more like democracy than a private list that's got "AI/magic" sorting that's intended to raise profits at the expense of society. In fact, government could get involved in legislating not the list, but common sense baselines on how such lists should be administered - setting the groundrules so to speak (mainly to prevent fraud/abuse).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]