3 ms·

In a way there's something very interesting in this situation. Facebook is known for cutting the API access to competitors, like it happen in the past with Vine

• camillomiller 6y ago
  Except this has even nothing to do with getting API cut for them or actually losing a functionality. They can do exactly everything they did as before, but they have to ask the users' permission. All they have to bake into their service is a fallback for when a user doesn't give them permission, which should be technically trivial (if it's not, it would be another sign of their unacceptable hubris). They are implicitly admitting that no user would ever accept what Facebook does as acceptable, if you properly inform them about how Facebook works. What a morally bankrupt company.
  • neodymiumphish 6y ago
    I don't think this properly describes the situation. If this goes through, Facebook doesn't have to "bake into their service is a fallback for when a user doesn't give them permission", they can just make sites require this permission. If the user declines, the site won't load. Alternatively, the do what you're suggesting, but the site gets no revenue for that user, this will pressure the sites to continually ask for the user to re-enable the permission or change the way the notice shows up so that they eventually accidentally allow it. Either way, nothing will change.