6 ms·

Facebook certainly has the right to ban this extension, but then we can't take their leadership seriously when they claim that they care about their users' heal

Facebook certainly has the right to ban this extension, but then we can't take their leadership seriously when they claim that they care about their users' health and well-being over profits. I.e. the point is the hypocrisy.

colpabar 5y ago
Oh yeah I agree 100%. I guess I should have also included that I have 0 faith in anything fb says, and that I believe any and all of their claims of "we care and we're working on it" are outright lies. i.e. I'm so used to the hypocrisy that I don't really think about it, because everything they do is bad.
2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
I agree, the whole "facebook has the right to do this" is a deflection that quickly derails the discussion. It's not the point. The point is: Sure Facebook can do that, but the fact that they do shows us how dishonest the people working there are with all the claims they make. Facebook has the right to do this, we have the right to call them out on it just the same.
ectopod 5y ago
> Facebook certainly has the right to ban this extension Why? It's a Chrome extension. They can ban the user and the extension will rot. That seems like more than enough power.
- max-ibel 5y ago
  Surely, the extension uses a public API. The extension acts on behalf of the end user. So, I think facebook can ban a particular API key (tied to a packaged extension), but they would have to ban all chrome extensions to get around someone taking the extension source and building their own. So I think facebook can by disabling the API, but won't do that since there are extension that it does like. Whether FB has legal grounds to go after users using such an extension would depend on the user terms, which I don't really know. It would be fairly egregious and risky for FB to do so. But I think if someone were to open source such an extension, this someone probably does not him/herself expose to a legal risk (speaking as a non-lawyer, and not giving legal advice)
bsedlm 5y ago
hypocrisy (along with taboos I guess) seem to be a necessary part of a functioning society.
- EGreg 5y ago
  Well, obviously. People can wax poetic about freedom of speech, the right to bear arms etc. But if there is a large separatist group that has historically wanted to destroy your country the first chance it gets, and members regularly commit violent acts to do it, would you really fight for the right to arm them all to the teeth, and then let them organize larger and larger rallies and shows of strength? Freedom ain’t free, and sometimes the cost can be a little too high: https://xkcd.com/1499/ https://xkcd.com/1499/
  - bsedlm 5y ago
    and in a more costly, less forgiving environment, there is not enough abudnance of wealth so society becomes less free. Neo-fascist autocracies here we go! (they're just cheaper)
matthew_kuiash 5y ago
Why do they have that right? Here's a car analogy - If I buy a Ford pick what right do they have to stop me doing donuts in it? Or maybe fitting a swimming pool in the back. Maybe I want to drive it around my ranch on fire. If an individual wants to use this software on their Facebook feed I really can't see what legal right FB have to prevent them. OTOH - something was probably "signed" in a EULA to prevent this.
- fwip 5y ago
  Are you being obtuse on purpose? Putting a swimming pool in your truck bed doesn't stop people from buying Fords.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- EGreg 5y ago
  Don’t worry, when cars will download more self-driving software, you can bet your butts it will restrict you from driving some places or in some manner. Drone manufacturers already do so, you can’t fly drones within 50km of an airport or whatever, can’t fly them above 30 meters depending on where you are, and the software enforces this. Books on Kindle and Movies on iTunes can be yanked away as you read or watch them. Now, when it comes to software that isn’t even hosted on your computer, what do you expect?
  - matthew_kuiash 5y ago
    I can't wait. Sadly I agree with you. This level of control is irresistible.
Kranar 5y ago
I think your argument is begging the question as it depends on a prior belief that Facebook is actually harmful. Replace Facebook with a gym membership, or a charity, or some other thing that one does not presume is harmful as the premise of their argument. Would the leadership of a gym be compromised and hypocrites if they banned someone who used their gym to tell others that working out is harmful and they should stop exercising at the gym? Would banning that member indicate that the owners of the gym don't care about the health of their users and instead put profits over well being? Your argument only works and sounds credible because most people on this site believe Facebook is harmful. If people don't share that belief, then it doesn't follow that Facebook is being hypocritical because they are banning someone who is using their product to defeat the product.
- munk-a 5y ago
  Lets say that a poorly designed gym wants to promote social interaction - so they build a cool down room with a small cafe that has a machine you need to swipe a card through every ten reps to continue using the exercise equipment. Some enterprising fellow builds a portable machine that will simulate the card swipe action but can be done at the actual exercise equipment. This seems like a fairer analogy to me since this extension is dealing with a component facebook put in to drive "engagement" that is viewed by a lot of people as an anti-feature - some people like it: Miles, who hangs around the gym for the conversation, really likes the fact that he bumps into people more often in the cool-down room... but most people wish that feature had never been added. Add all of that to the fact that Facebook is the only tool Facebook allows on Facebook (so there are no competing gyms) and the tool becomes even more justifiable. Is it still quite legal for Facebook to C&D this guy - absolutely - but they're definitely not acting in their user's best interest.
  - Kranar 5y ago
    Sure if the gym is poorly designed and causing actual harm, then you can attack the gym on the basis of being poorly designed and causing harm. Attacking the gym on the basis that its owners do not want patrons who are using the very gym as a means of compromising it is not a valid argument as to why the gym's owners are hypocrites, causing harm, and putting profits above the well being of their customers.
p_j_w 5y ago
>we can't take their leadership seriously when they claim that they care about their users' health and well-being over profits. Can we ever take a company that says this seriously? Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I never do.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
restingrobot 5y ago
Basically every Fortune 500 company is guilty of this. Most corporations loyalties go Shareholders, Employees, Government, Customers in that order. It is more shocking to me that anyone is surprised Facebook puts profit over people. I would be surprised if they *Didn't* do that.
asdvasdi 5y ago
Asking honestly, curious to know what would do you think is a good response from the company now? Considering, a few months ago, the company took down high profile accounts and content on its platform because it deemed something dangerous and lot of people were mad that company did that and it was censorship. Now the people are mad at the company because they didn't do enough moderation to ensure user health and well being. The company tried launching a version of the product with higher parental controls to let parents take more control, and people were mad and made the company stop those efforts. At this point in the company, what would you think is an acceptable response? Is there even a response that makes everyone happy?
- themitigating 5y ago
  You know most people want Facebook to go down. If they are on the right it's because of the censorship which prevents them from using misinformation to win votes. On the left it's the misinformation.
- ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
  I am not confident that "make everyone happy", either equally, or even in varying amounts, should even be the primary objective here a good response would be one that starts with respectable principles and values and proceeds according to those, even when it costs money of course, that won't happen voluntarily, because money
  - nradov 5y ago
    In a company that operates worldwide, which country's or culture's principles and values should take precedence?
    - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
      a good start would be for them to pick any that they can consistently apply and then seek feedback, but ideally it would explicitly describe what the trade-offs are between user safety and profits at the moment, the only principles they consistently apply seem to be: protect zuckerberg first, company profits second, everything else third, but that's just my perception -- they should make clear what their principles are so we can judge whether or not they consistently stick to them, and whether or not we need legislation to nudge those priorities around for the good of society
squarefoot 5y ago
> Facebook certainly has the right to ban this extension Surely they can fight against it by changing how the platform works, or ban it if it was hosted somewhere on FB, or ban the author because he wrote something that hits their core business, but sending a cease and desist for an extension that is hosted elsewhere is like a tobacco company sending C&D letters to people selling anti smoking patches or telling publicly that smoking is bad for health. WTF!, this is bullying plain and simple; I already stay away from everything related to FB as much as I can (I knew about the recent FB outage by the evening news, didn't even turn on the tablet with Whatsapp that day), but I will try hard to turn that nearly 0.1% use to 0%. > I.e. the point is the hypocrisy. Exactly. At least Google removed the "Do no evil" part from their mission.
fencepost 5y ago
It's not entirely clear to me that FB would have any right to ban the extension. They could attempt to keep users from using it through policies or detection, but it's running by user choice on user computers in user browsers. I suspect in the US this would have been handled differently but loser pays against a company that can afford to inflate costs by millions per week to make an example....
chrismcb 5y ago
I'm not sure there is hypocrisy. They can and should care about both. Without users there is no profit.

colpabar 5y ago

Oh yeah I agree 100%. I guess I should have also included that I have 0 faith in anything fb says, and that I believe any and all of their claims of "we care and we're working on it" are outright lies. i.e. I'm so used to the hypocrisy that I don't really think about it, because everything they do is bad.

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago

I agree, the whole "facebook has the right to do this" is a deflection that quickly derails the discussion. It's not the point. The point is: Sure Facebook can do that, but the fact that they do shows us how dishonest the people working there are with all the claims they make. Facebook has the right to do this, we have the right to call them out on it just the same.

ectopod 5y ago

> Facebook certainly has the right to ban this extension Why? It's a Chrome extension. They can ban the user and the extension will rot. That seems like more than enough power.

max-ibel 5y ago
Surely, the extension uses a public API. The extension acts on behalf of the end user. So, I think facebook can ban a particular API key (tied to a packaged extension), but they would have to ban all chrome extensions to get around someone taking the extension source and building their own. So I think facebook can by disabling the API, but won't do that since there are extension that it does like. Whether FB has legal grounds to go after users using such an extension would depend on the user terms, which I don't really know. It would be fairly egregious and risky for FB to do so. But I think if someone were to open source such an extension, this someone probably does not him/herself expose to a legal risk (speaking as a non-lawyer, and not giving legal advice)

bsedlm 5y ago

hypocrisy (along with taboos I guess) seem to be a necessary part of a functioning society.

EGreg 5y ago
Well, obviously. People can wax poetic about freedom of speech, the right to bear arms etc. But if there is a large separatist group that has historically wanted to destroy your country the first chance it gets, and members regularly commit violent acts to do it, would you really fight for the right to arm them all to the teeth, and then let them organize larger and larger rallies and shows of strength? Freedom ain’t free, and sometimes the cost can be a little too high: https://xkcd.com/1499/ https://xkcd.com/1499/
- bsedlm 5y ago
  and in a more costly, less forgiving environment, there is not enough abudnance of wealth so society becomes less free. Neo-fascist autocracies here we go! (they're just cheaper)

matthew_kuiash 5y ago

Why do they have that right? Here's a car analogy - If I buy a Ford pick what right do they have to stop me doing donuts in it? Or maybe fitting a swimming pool in the back. Maybe I want to drive it around my ranch on fire. If an individual wants to use this software on their Facebook feed I really can't see what legal right FB have to prevent them. OTOH - something was probably "signed" in a EULA to prevent this.

fwip 5y ago
Are you being obtuse on purpose? Putting a swimming pool in your truck bed doesn't stop people from buying Fords.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
EGreg 5y ago
Don’t worry, when cars will download more self-driving software, you can bet your butts it will restrict you from driving some places or in some manner. Drone manufacturers already do so, you can’t fly drones within 50km of an airport or whatever, can’t fly them above 30 meters depending on where you are, and the software enforces this. Books on Kindle and Movies on iTunes can be yanked away as you read or watch them. Now, when it comes to software that isn’t even hosted on your computer, what do you expect?
- matthew_kuiash 5y ago
  I can't wait. Sadly I agree with you. This level of control is irresistible.

Kranar 5y ago

I think your argument is begging the question as it depends on a prior belief that Facebook is actually harmful. Replace Facebook with a gym membership, or a charity, or some other thing that one does not presume is harmful as the premise of their argument. Would the leadership of a gym be compromised and hypocrites if they banned someone who used their gym to tell others that working out is harmful and they should stop exercising at the gym? Would banning that member indicate that the owners of the gym don't care about the health of their users and instead put profits over well being? Your argument only works and sounds credible because most people on this site believe Facebook is harmful. If people don't share that belief, then it doesn't follow that Facebook is being hypocritical because they are banning someone who is using their product to defeat the product.

munk-a 5y ago
Lets say that a poorly designed gym wants to promote social interaction - so they build a cool down room with a small cafe that has a machine you need to swipe a card through every ten reps to continue using the exercise equipment. Some enterprising fellow builds a portable machine that will simulate the card swipe action but can be done at the actual exercise equipment. This seems like a fairer analogy to me since this extension is dealing with a component facebook put in to drive "engagement" that is viewed by a lot of people as an anti-feature - some people like it: Miles, who hangs around the gym for the conversation, really likes the fact that he bumps into people more often in the cool-down room... but most people wish that feature had never been added. Add all of that to the fact that Facebook is the only tool Facebook allows on Facebook (so there are no competing gyms) and the tool becomes even more justifiable. Is it still quite legal for Facebook to C&D this guy - absolutely - but they're definitely not acting in their user's best interest.
- Kranar 5y ago
  Sure if the gym is poorly designed and causing actual harm, then you can attack the gym on the basis of being poorly designed and causing harm. Attacking the gym on the basis that its owners do not want patrons who are using the very gym as a means of compromising it is not a valid argument as to why the gym's owners are hypocrites, causing harm, and putting profits above the well being of their customers.

p_j_w 5y ago

>we can't take their leadership seriously when they claim that they care about their users' health and well-being over profits. Can we ever take a company that says this seriously? Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I never do.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

restingrobot 5y ago

Basically every Fortune 500 company is guilty of this. Most corporations loyalties go Shareholders, Employees, Government, Customers in that order. It is more shocking to me that anyone is surprised Facebook puts profit over people. I would be surprised if they *Didn't* do that.

asdvasdi 5y ago

Asking honestly, curious to know what would do you think is a good response from the company now? Considering, a few months ago, the company took down high profile accounts and content on its platform because it deemed something dangerous and lot of people were mad that company did that and it was censorship. Now the people are mad at the company because they didn't do enough moderation to ensure user health and well being. The company tried launching a version of the product with higher parental controls to let parents take more control, and people were mad and made the company stop those efforts. At this point in the company, what would you think is an acceptable response? Is there even a response that makes everyone happy?

themitigating 5y ago
You know most people want Facebook to go down. If they are on the right it's because of the censorship which prevents them from using misinformation to win votes. On the left it's the misinformation.
ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
I am not confident that "make everyone happy", either equally, or even in varying amounts, should even be the primary objective here a good response would be one that starts with respectable principles and values and proceeds according to those, even when it costs money of course, that won't happen voluntarily, because money
- nradov 5y ago
  In a company that operates worldwide, which country's or culture's principles and values should take precedence?
  - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
    a good start would be for them to pick any that they can consistently apply and then seek feedback, but ideally it would explicitly describe what the trade-offs are between user safety and profits at the moment, the only principles they consistently apply seem to be: protect zuckerberg first, company profits second, everything else third, but that's just my perception -- they should make clear what their principles are so we can judge whether or not they consistently stick to them, and whether or not we need legislation to nudge those priorities around for the good of society

squarefoot 5y ago

> Facebook certainly has the right to ban this extension Surely they can fight against it by changing how the platform works, or ban it if it was hosted somewhere on FB, or ban the author because he wrote something that hits their core business, but sending a cease and desist for an extension that is hosted elsewhere is like a tobacco company sending C&D letters to people selling anti smoking patches or telling publicly that smoking is bad for health. WTF!, this is bullying plain and simple; I already stay away from everything related to FB as much as I can (I knew about the recent FB outage by the evening news, didn't even turn on the tablet with Whatsapp that day), but I will try hard to turn that nearly 0.1% use to 0%. > I.e. the point is the hypocrisy. Exactly. At least Google removed the "Do no evil" part from their mission.

fencepost 5y ago

It's not entirely clear to me that FB would have any right to ban the extension. They could attempt to keep users from using it through policies or detection, but it's running by user choice on user computers in user browsers. I suspect in the US this would have been handled differently but loser pays against a company that can afford to inflate costs by millions per week to make an example....

chrismcb 5y ago

I'm not sure there is hypocrisy. They can and should care about both. Without users there is no profit.