7 ms·

Did Facebook hijack a developer’s app for its own purposes?

44 points by tilt 15y ago

jneal 15y ago
Not hard to believe Facebook would do such a thing. I see so many times big companies like Facebook do things like this assuming they will receive no flack, and as soon as flack comes their way they pop out with an apology and act like nothing ever happened. I'm sorry, but this "do first, ask later" mentality annoys the piss out of me.
Skroob 15y ago
When you're building on someone else's platform, you're subject to their whims, whether you like it or not. Facebook can delete your app for no reason, so can Apple and Google and Microsoft. If you're building a Netflix or Twitter app and they change their API (or terms of service) to disable your app, you don't really have any legal recourse. Yeah it sucks, but it's a pitfall of doing business on someone else's platform, and one that developers should be keenly aware of before they start.
- jdp23 15y ago
  True. But when you're developing a platform, you want it to be known as a place where developers are treated fairly. Just as with their trigger-happy deletion of apps a while ago, Facebook seems to be sending a message of "screw you, we'll do what we want". Presumably I'm not the only developers considering whether or not to invest resources in the Facebook platform who notices stuff like this.
  - mkjones 15y ago
    A lot of that thing a few weeks ago was a mishap, not anyone trying to say "screw you, we'll do what we want." Sorry it felt that way :-/. Hopefully if you were incorrectly affected, things got resolved? Check out https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/521/ https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/521/ for some info on how we're trying to improve the experience when we find apps to be too spammy / in violation of policy. I think the team working on that has already made quite a bit of progress (all while still keeping spam numbers down, which is pretty impressive). Disclaimer: I work at FB, but not on the platform team.
    - jdp23 15y ago
      Thanks for the response, mkjones. I certainly don't think anybody at Facebook is _trying_ to say "screw you, we'll do what we want", and I think the new approach is a very positive step. But the impression it leaves as an app developer is that you made a change that disabled a bunch of apps without thinking about the implications, and then rolled it back when people made enough noise. As somebody else says, Facebook's got a pattern of doing this; so you don't have a reservoir of goodwill.
- domador 15y ago
  In a sense, whatever we build is always built upon someone else's platform. The Internet itself is someone else's platform. The legal framework in our respective countries is someone else's platform. These two platforms are harder to control than an online service like Facebook, but they can likewise be controlled in ways that are stifling and unfair. Given that every useful platform is owned by someone else, I despise arguments of the form "Such-and-such a platform is not yours, so don't complain if its owners behave like jerks". I agree that complaining is generally fruitless and we must be cautious about binding ourselves to platforms where we are essentially disenfranchised. However, I think we all have the right to call out thuggish actions wherever we see them and to insist that platform owners treat their users and dependents respectfully. I will cheer for people who stand up to jerks before I criticize them for having exposed themselves up to harm from a platform's owners.
  - Skroob 15y ago
    I don't disagree with you. Complain if you want. Sometimes it helps. But don't make the mistake of thinking you're entitled to anything.
  - a3_nm 15y ago
    Two important differences: - The Internet is not controlled by a single entity. - The Internet is documented by standards.
- JohnsonB 15y ago
  Facebook is a social network monopoly and one of the main avenues of business on the web of which there is essentially no replacement (in terms of doing business on a popular general purpose social network.) The fact that they can ban an app unfairly on a whim is not just some minor side issue, and if they abuse their privilege like this its a serious issue for all. In this case what they did is clearly anti-competitive.
- code_duck 15y ago
  A little gratitude to developers from the Twitters and Facebooks of the world would not be amiss. Whether they are able to take such actions is not the question; it's whether it is respectable or even a good business decision to treat developers so poorly. Many companies like this who were encouraging developers to use their public API two years ago have now decided we are only useful to the extent you can take advantage of us, while it's convenient. A few prominent VCs and CEOs have made it clear they think the time for any sort of idea of a partnership between open API service providers and developers is behind us.
- jneal 15y ago
  I don't disagree with this, but it's still a shame. What if Microsoft updated their TOS and decided to delete Adobe products? You think Adobe would have a case against them? I think so... Although someone from Facebook has rebutted these claims, if this story was 100% true, I would think the company that had their app deleted would have easy success in an anti-trust lawsuit.
wccrawford 15y ago
"This is grossly undemocratic" hahaha Websites are not democracies. Private property isn't a democracy. Companies aren't democracies. Get it out of your head that they are and life will go a lot smoother.
- Skroob 15y ago
  And "freedom of speech" only applies to the government, and only governments in the US. Websites that delete your comments are not limiting your freedom of speech. </pet_peeve>
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    They are limiting your freedom of speech; however, they are not infringing on the rights granted by the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution.
- Joeboy 15y ago
  Those things aren't constitutionally, legally or inherently democracies, but it's nevertheless possible for them to be administrated in a more, or less, democratic manner.
cbs 15y ago
Developing on someone else's platform, you're just doing market research for them. See: Windows, Mac OS, iOS, Android.
ignifero 15y ago
If developers could sue Zuck, he would be doing 7 times life now.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  I don't think people get sent to prison for civil suits.
  - ignifero 15y ago
    i believe i wasn't being literal.
kellysutton 15y ago
And that's why you make sure you always have platform independence.
tantalor 15y ago
Answer: no. Read the TOS.
larrik 15y ago
I can't imagine Facebook's actions are actually illegal. And if they ARE illegal, it seems to me that it would most likely mean that the lawyers who wrote the developer's terms of use messed up somehow.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
mkjones 15y ago
Hey guys, I work on anti-spam at FB (though not specifically platform) and just looked into this. It looks like their app was disabled for pre-filling content so that it looks like users typed it, which makes for a super spammy experience and is explicitly against our ToS. They were disabled within policy (and the reason was communicated to them - check out the OP at http://www.nimitkumar.in/?p=196 http://www.nimitkumar.in/?p=196). The vanity URL "videocalling" wasn't reclaimed until June, and I'm pretty sure was completely unrelated to this app being disabled. If we wanted it for our own use, we would have been up-front about that, not done some roundabout make-up-an-excuse-and-kill-an-innocent-app tomfoolery that the poster is suggesting. Besides, it'd be a gigantic waste of time to build marketing pages 3 months before a product launch given how fast things change even in the week or two prior to a launch. All that being said, we're working pretty hard on improving the developer experience when an app is found to be in violation of policies. This isn't something I work on directly, so I don't wanna go shooting my mouth off, but check out https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/521/ https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/521/ for some background.
- domador 15y ago
  If things are as you say, then we may have jumped to conclusions and judged Facebook unfairly on this particular matter. However, I'd say jumping to conclusions is to be expected, given Facebook's track record. I long ago stopped giving FB the benefit of the doubt, considering the many questionable and thoughtless actions in its past. FB has a long way to go in recovering the goodwill it has lost (from me and surely from others). (BY the way, I have not watched "The Social Network" or formed any opinions on FB based on that movie. My opinions are strictly based on news articles and my personal experience with the service.)
  - mkjones 15y ago
    Sad to hear we've lost your faith :-/. Hopefully we can build it back, though I know it's often hard to change one's feelings about things. I'm curious what you think we've done that's particularly questionable or thoughtless. I think a lot of memes ("facebook sells your data to advertisers!") are just plain wrong, and if you think about them for a while you realize they make no sense (we'd clearly stand to gain more by not giving anyone access to it and only allowing advertisers to target things with various criteria, then handling the assignment of ad to user internally, without leaking any data). A lot of other issues are just more nuanced, and it drives a lot more clicks to posit some sensationalist conspiracy theory than to discuss the complexities behind a situation. I try not to discuss anything on here that I don't directly work on, so bear in mind that I may not be able to address any of your concerns.
gojomo 15y ago
The article mentions 'manifest destiny' but 'eminent domain' would be the more apropriate analogy. Facebook is its own country, in many ways.
biznickman 15y ago
Umm this app had practically no traffic. I feel like the developer is just using this to try and get attention for a failed product.

44 points by tilt 15y ago

jneal 15y ago

Not hard to believe Facebook would do such a thing. I see so many times big companies like Facebook do things like this assuming they will receive no flack, and as soon as flack comes their way they pop out with an apology and act like nothing ever happened. I'm sorry, but this "do first, ask later" mentality annoys the piss out of me.

Skroob 15y ago

When you're building on someone else's platform, you're subject to their whims, whether you like it or not. Facebook can delete your app for no reason, so can Apple and Google and Microsoft. If you're building a Netflix or Twitter app and they change their API (or terms of service) to disable your app, you don't really have any legal recourse. Yeah it sucks, but it's a pitfall of doing business on someone else's platform, and one that developers should be keenly aware of before they start.

jdp23 15y ago
True. But when you're developing a platform, you want it to be known as a place where developers are treated fairly. Just as with their trigger-happy deletion of apps a while ago, Facebook seems to be sending a message of "screw you, we'll do what we want". Presumably I'm not the only developers considering whether or not to invest resources in the Facebook platform who notices stuff like this.
- mkjones 15y ago
  A lot of that thing a few weeks ago was a mishap, not anyone trying to say "screw you, we'll do what we want." Sorry it felt that way :-/. Hopefully if you were incorrectly affected, things got resolved? Check out https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/521/ https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/521/ for some info on how we're trying to improve the experience when we find apps to be too spammy / in violation of policy. I think the team working on that has already made quite a bit of progress (all while still keeping spam numbers down, which is pretty impressive). Disclaimer: I work at FB, but not on the platform team.
  - jdp23 15y ago
    Thanks for the response, mkjones. I certainly don't think anybody at Facebook is _trying_ to say "screw you, we'll do what we want", and I think the new approach is a very positive step. But the impression it leaves as an app developer is that you made a change that disabled a bunch of apps without thinking about the implications, and then rolled it back when people made enough noise. As somebody else says, Facebook's got a pattern of doing this; so you don't have a reservoir of goodwill.
domador 15y ago
In a sense, whatever we build is always built upon someone else's platform. The Internet itself is someone else's platform. The legal framework in our respective countries is someone else's platform. These two platforms are harder to control than an online service like Facebook, but they can likewise be controlled in ways that are stifling and unfair. Given that every useful platform is owned by someone else, I despise arguments of the form "Such-and-such a platform is not yours, so don't complain if its owners behave like jerks". I agree that complaining is generally fruitless and we must be cautious about binding ourselves to platforms where we are essentially disenfranchised. However, I think we all have the right to call out thuggish actions wherever we see them and to insist that platform owners treat their users and dependents respectfully. I will cheer for people who stand up to jerks before I criticize them for having exposed themselves up to harm from a platform's owners.
- Skroob 15y ago
  I don't disagree with you. Complain if you want. Sometimes it helps. But don't make the mistake of thinking you're entitled to anything.
- a3_nm 15y ago
  Two important differences: - The Internet is not controlled by a single entity. - The Internet is documented by standards.
JohnsonB 15y ago
Facebook is a social network monopoly and one of the main avenues of business on the web of which there is essentially no replacement (in terms of doing business on a popular general purpose social network.) The fact that they can ban an app unfairly on a whim is not just some minor side issue, and if they abuse their privilege like this its a serious issue for all. In this case what they did is clearly anti-competitive.
code_duck 15y ago
A little gratitude to developers from the Twitters and Facebooks of the world would not be amiss. Whether they are able to take such actions is not the question; it's whether it is respectable or even a good business decision to treat developers so poorly. Many companies like this who were encouraging developers to use their public API two years ago have now decided we are only useful to the extent you can take advantage of us, while it's convenient. A few prominent VCs and CEOs have made it clear they think the time for any sort of idea of a partnership between open API service providers and developers is behind us.
jneal 15y ago
I don't disagree with this, but it's still a shame. What if Microsoft updated their TOS and decided to delete Adobe products? You think Adobe would have a case against them? I think so... Although someone from Facebook has rebutted these claims, if this story was 100% true, I would think the company that had their app deleted would have easy success in an anti-trust lawsuit.

wccrawford 15y ago

"This is grossly undemocratic" hahaha Websites are not democracies. Private property isn't a democracy. Companies aren't democracies. Get it out of your head that they are and life will go a lot smoother.

Skroob 15y ago
And "freedom of speech" only applies to the government, and only governments in the US. Websites that delete your comments are not limiting your freedom of speech. </pet_peeve>
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  They are limiting your freedom of speech; however, they are not infringing on the rights granted by the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution.
Joeboy 15y ago
Those things aren't constitutionally, legally or inherently democracies, but it's nevertheless possible for them to be administrated in a more, or less, democratic manner.

cbs 15y ago

Developing on someone else's platform, you're just doing market research for them. See: Windows, Mac OS, iOS, Android.

ignifero 15y ago

If developers could sue Zuck, he would be doing 7 times life now.

pavel_lishin 15y ago
I don't think people get sent to prison for civil suits.
- ignifero 15y ago
  i believe i wasn't being literal.

kellysutton 15y ago

And that's why you make sure you always have platform independence.

tantalor 15y ago

Answer: no. Read the TOS.

larrik 15y ago

I can't imagine Facebook's actions are actually illegal. And if they ARE illegal, it seems to me that it would most likely mean that the lawyers who wrote the developer's terms of use messed up somehow.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

mkjones 15y ago

Hey guys, I work on anti-spam at FB (though not specifically platform) and just looked into this. It looks like their app was disabled for pre-filling content so that it looks like users typed it, which makes for a super spammy experience and is explicitly against our ToS. They were disabled within policy (and the reason was communicated to them - check out the OP at http://www.nimitkumar.in/?p=196 http://www.nimitkumar.in/?p=196). The vanity URL "videocalling" wasn't reclaimed until June, and I'm pretty sure was completely unrelated to this app being disabled. If we wanted it for our own use, we would have been up-front about that, not done some roundabout make-up-an-excuse-and-kill-an-innocent-app tomfoolery that the poster is suggesting. Besides, it'd be a gigantic waste of time to build marketing pages 3 months before a product launch given how fast things change even in the week or two prior to a launch. All that being said, we're working pretty hard on improving the developer experience when an app is found to be in violation of policies. This isn't something I work on directly, so I don't wanna go shooting my mouth off, but check out https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/521/ https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/521/ for some background.

domador 15y ago
If things are as you say, then we may have jumped to conclusions and judged Facebook unfairly on this particular matter. However, I'd say jumping to conclusions is to be expected, given Facebook's track record. I long ago stopped giving FB the benefit of the doubt, considering the many questionable and thoughtless actions in its past. FB has a long way to go in recovering the goodwill it has lost (from me and surely from others). (BY the way, I have not watched "The Social Network" or formed any opinions on FB based on that movie. My opinions are strictly based on news articles and my personal experience with the service.)
- mkjones 15y ago
  Sad to hear we've lost your faith :-/. Hopefully we can build it back, though I know it's often hard to change one's feelings about things. I'm curious what you think we've done that's particularly questionable or thoughtless. I think a lot of memes ("facebook sells your data to advertisers!") are just plain wrong, and if you think about them for a while you realize they make no sense (we'd clearly stand to gain more by not giving anyone access to it and only allowing advertisers to target things with various criteria, then handling the assignment of ad to user internally, without leaking any data). A lot of other issues are just more nuanced, and it drives a lot more clicks to posit some sensationalist conspiracy theory than to discuss the complexities behind a situation. I try not to discuss anything on here that I don't directly work on, so bear in mind that I may not be able to address any of your concerns.

gojomo 15y ago

The article mentions 'manifest destiny' but 'eminent domain' would be the more apropriate analogy. Facebook is its own country, in many ways.

biznickman 15y ago

Umm this app had practically no traffic. I feel like the developer is just using this to try and get attention for a failed product.