10 ms·

A ban? Fine, whatever, their house their rules. A cease and desist for making a browser extension that automates a process that any user could themselves do wi

A ban? Fine, whatever, their house their rules. A cease and desist for making a browser extension that automates a process that any user could themselves do with no special "hacking" required? Absolutely absurd, I hope there is no legal basis for this threat.

NotPractical 5y ago
If there is a legal basis for this threat, I guess most browser extensions are at risk.
e9 5y ago
It’s probably because extension was recording usage of Facebook. They are cracking down on any type of user data collection even with user consent. Which is ironic but in some way makes sense to avoid another Cambridge Analytica. Edit: to clarify confusion, author of the extension worked with university to collect user data to use for study: https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-everything-cease-desist.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-every...
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  Facebook is an ad platform. The guy wrote a plugin that removes their ability to display ads. Now he's banned. It's pretty straightforward.
- akersten 5y ago
  With the disclaimer that I haven't looked too closely into it - that does make things sound a little sketchier from a user privacy perspective. I probably wouldn't use the extension myself. I'm still curious how Facebook has standing just because data is being recorded about the user's browsing which happens to include (maybe exclusively) their website. Most browser extensions are capable of exfiltrating page content - are they all in target for FB to say "nah, we don't like that" on behalf of someone who goes to facebook.com with the extension installed? I would think (hope) not.
- lowkey_ 5y ago
  I imagine it's more so, at least according to the article as well, that this extension is automating user interactions. As an example of automated user interactions: It's clearly not allowed to use an extension that will automatically follow on Instagram in order to increase your follower count. Sadly, although this extension should morally be categorized differently, it falls into the same category per their rules — automatically following is treated the same as automatically unfollowing. (In fact, a common feature of automatic follower bots is to automatically unfollow afterwards).
- burkaman 5y ago
  No, the letter is here: https://louisbarclay.notion.site/Unfollow-Everything-cease-and-desist-letter-from-Facebook-ea219169421b457bb7ce010b7bf9ce1f https://louisbarclay.notion.site/Unfollow-Everything-cease-a.... It's because the extension "automates actions on Facebook". Why do you say it was recording usage?
  - e9 5y ago
    The author of the extension admits he worked with university to collect user data for some study: https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-everything-cease-desist.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-every...
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28806696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28806696
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Given the numerous other claims and demands made in P&C's C&D, why not specifically include such a claim, if merited. It would certainly read far more charitably toward FB on HN, in US Senate and House hearings, and at the FTC, FCC, and DoJ. But that's just me.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Since you linked to the Slate article, let's quote it directly: A few months after I published Unfollow Everything, academics at the University of Neuchâtel, in Switzerland, expressed interest in using it to study the News Feed’s impact on the amount of time spent on Facebook and the happiness of the platform’s users. We began working together. The university recruited people to join two study groups: one where participants deleted their News Feeds using Unfollow Everything and a control group where participants left their feeds intact. Participants agreed to share limited and anonymous information—specifically, the amount of time they spent on Facebook, the number of times they visited the site, and the number of friends, groups, and pages they were following and not following, both in total and broken down by category. (For regular Unfollow Everything users, the only Facebook-related data shared was the ratio of followed profiles to total profiles, a metric that helped me ensure the tool was working.) Again: For regular Unfollow Everything users, the only Facebook-related data shared was the ratio of followed profiles to total profiles, a metric that helped me ensure the tool was working. https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-everything-cease-desist.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-every... The "data sharing" claim, which you've repeated several times in this thread, is as bogus as any other FB have proposed.
trangus_1985 5y ago
> Fine, whatever, their house their rules When they are the de facto form of communication for a significant percentage of the population, it starts to go from "their rules" territory to "society's rules". Can you imagine being cut off from the phone system 40 years ago because you were selling answering machines?
- throwaway6734 5y ago
  There are multiple other ways to contact people. I haven't used facebook in almost a decade and have zero issue communicating with people
- bragh 5y ago
  If you do not like the rules set by them, you can always build your own social network.
  - b9a2cab5 5y ago
    This is like saying if you don't like the rules you can build your own multinational telephone network. There's a reason telecoms are subject to common carrier rules and I don't see why tech monopolies should be any different.
    - bragh 5y ago
      I think you are seriously and intentionally misunderstanding the point. So far it was completely fine for Facebook to ban whoever they wanted and it was justified by them being a private company. Anybody who complained about it was told that they can build their own social network/cloud provider/payment provider. Somehow now this is bad... Ridiculous.
      - macksd 5y ago
        Different people on the Internet will say different things. You can't really assign one collective motive to everything on the Internet and then say it's hypocritical.
londons_explore 5y ago
It's probably for using the Facebook name or logo. They could even potentially argue that the names of the "unfollow" buttons and associated URL's (which are in the code of the extension) are copyright facebook. The source code has things like: getElementsByClassName("oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 qv66sw1b Which are very much on dodgy ground... Even a very weak legal argument is enough to win when you're fighting someone who doesn't have the budget or desire to even show up in the courtroom.
- chii 5y ago
  those element names have no creative attributes, and i would argue those individual element names do not constitute a copyrightable work. The contents of the page (including the source code) is the copyrighted work.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
The full cease and desist is posted here: https://louisbarclay.notion.site/Unfollow-Everything-cease-and-desist-letter-from-Facebook-ea219169421b457bb7ce010b7bf9ce1f https://louisbarclay.notion.site/Unfollow-Everything-cease-a... It’s not strictly about automating API requests. He was also using Facebook’s trademarks (easy target for valid C&D requests). He was also using the plugin to collect data from users, including some very detailed data for a subset that opted in to a study. Facebook doesn’t take kindly to people making extensions that use their trademarks and collect user data, no matter how trivial.
- jjulius 5y ago
  >Facebook doesn’t take kindly to people making extensions that ... collect user data, no matter how trivial. The hypocrisy here is absolutely hilarious.
- akersten 5y ago
  > He was also using Facebook’s trademarks Seems like the only potentially legally valid part of it. And even then, if he's not misrepresenting his product as made by Facebook (just "compatible with Facebook" or "use while you're on Facebook") I think it's still a stretch. Can a cottage industry survive without ever being allowed to even name the companion products for which the extension is designed?
  - MereInterest 5y ago
    To my understanding, the original purpose of trademarks was to protect the buyer. If I buy a bicycle listed as being from X, I can expect that it was manufactured by X, or at the very least endorsed by X (e.g. Kirkland products). If a different manufacturer Y labels their product as X, then I no longer have that certainty. But corporations have taken that and gone way too far on it. If I describe a product as being "compatible with X" or "fits on an X", that in no way makes a claim that it is manufactured by X. Like how tv manufacturers should be able to say "Perfect for watching the Super Bowl this weekend.", but avoid doing so for fear of being sued. There's no endorsement at all there, nor any dilution of the trademark, and yet it gets treated as though the words themselves are protected.
2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
> I hope there is no legal basis for this threat Does that really matter? If a malicious company like Facebook wants to ruin your life and drown you in lawsuits, they are able to do so. By the time it is determined that the person under attack by Facebook is actually in the right, the damage will be done.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
croes 5y ago
Not so fast. What if you bought games in the Oculus store? You can't just ban someone and remove his access to paid software because of a browser extension. What about my computer, my browser my rules?

NotPractical 5y ago

If there is a legal basis for this threat, I guess most browser extensions are at risk.

e9 5y ago

It’s probably because extension was recording usage of Facebook. They are cracking down on any type of user data collection even with user consent. Which is ironic but in some way makes sense to avoid another Cambridge Analytica. Edit: to clarify confusion, author of the extension worked with university to collect user data to use for study: https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-everything-cease-desist.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-every...

ARandomerDude 5y ago
Facebook is an ad platform. The guy wrote a plugin that removes their ability to display ads. Now he's banned. It's pretty straightforward.
akersten 5y ago
With the disclaimer that I haven't looked too closely into it - that does make things sound a little sketchier from a user privacy perspective. I probably wouldn't use the extension myself. I'm still curious how Facebook has standing just because data is being recorded about the user's browsing which happens to include (maybe exclusively) their website. Most browser extensions are capable of exfiltrating page content - are they all in target for FB to say "nah, we don't like that" on behalf of someone who goes to facebook.com with the extension installed? I would think (hope) not.
lowkey_ 5y ago
I imagine it's more so, at least according to the article as well, that this extension is automating user interactions. As an example of automated user interactions: It's clearly not allowed to use an extension that will automatically follow on Instagram in order to increase your follower count. Sadly, although this extension should morally be categorized differently, it falls into the same category per their rules — automatically following is treated the same as automatically unfollowing. (In fact, a common feature of automatic follower bots is to automatically unfollow afterwards).
burkaman 5y ago
No, the letter is here: https://louisbarclay.notion.site/Unfollow-Everything-cease-and-desist-letter-from-Facebook-ea219169421b457bb7ce010b7bf9ce1f https://louisbarclay.notion.site/Unfollow-Everything-cease-a.... It's because the extension "automates actions on Facebook". Why do you say it was recording usage?
- e9 5y ago
  The author of the extension admits he worked with university to collect user data for some study: https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-everything-cease-desist.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-every...
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28806696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28806696
dredmorbius 5y ago
Given the numerous other claims and demands made in P&C's C&D, why not specifically include such a claim, if merited. It would certainly read far more charitably toward FB on HN, in US Senate and House hearings, and at the FTC, FCC, and DoJ. But that's just me.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Since you linked to the Slate article, let's quote it directly: A few months after I published Unfollow Everything, academics at the University of Neuchâtel, in Switzerland, expressed interest in using it to study the News Feed’s impact on the amount of time spent on Facebook and the happiness of the platform’s users. We began working together. The university recruited people to join two study groups: one where participants deleted their News Feeds using Unfollow Everything and a control group where participants left their feeds intact. Participants agreed to share limited and anonymous information—specifically, the amount of time they spent on Facebook, the number of times they visited the site, and the number of friends, groups, and pages they were following and not following, both in total and broken down by category. (For regular Unfollow Everything users, the only Facebook-related data shared was the ratio of followed profiles to total profiles, a metric that helped me ensure the tool was working.) Again: For regular Unfollow Everything users, the only Facebook-related data shared was the ratio of followed profiles to total profiles, a metric that helped me ensure the tool was working. https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-everything-cease-desist.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-every... The "data sharing" claim, which you've repeated several times in this thread, is as bogus as any other FB have proposed.

trangus_1985 5y ago

> Fine, whatever, their house their rules When they are the de facto form of communication for a significant percentage of the population, it starts to go from "their rules" territory to "society's rules". Can you imagine being cut off from the phone system 40 years ago because you were selling answering machines?

throwaway6734 5y ago
There are multiple other ways to contact people. I haven't used facebook in almost a decade and have zero issue communicating with people
bragh 5y ago
If you do not like the rules set by them, you can always build your own social network.
- b9a2cab5 5y ago
  This is like saying if you don't like the rules you can build your own multinational telephone network. There's a reason telecoms are subject to common carrier rules and I don't see why tech monopolies should be any different.
  - bragh 5y ago
    I think you are seriously and intentionally misunderstanding the point. So far it was completely fine for Facebook to ban whoever they wanted and it was justified by them being a private company. Anybody who complained about it was told that they can build their own social network/cloud provider/payment provider. Somehow now this is bad... Ridiculous.
    - macksd 5y ago
      Different people on the Internet will say different things. You can't really assign one collective motive to everything on the Internet and then say it's hypocritical.

londons_explore 5y ago

It's probably for using the Facebook name or logo. They could even potentially argue that the names of the "unfollow" buttons and associated URL's (which are in the code of the extension) are copyright facebook. The source code has things like: getElementsByClassName("oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 qv66sw1b Which are very much on dodgy ground... Even a very weak legal argument is enough to win when you're fighting someone who doesn't have the budget or desire to even show up in the courtroom.

chii 5y ago
those element names have no creative attributes, and i would argue those individual element names do not constitute a copyrightable work. The contents of the page (including the source code) is the copyrighted work.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

The full cease and desist is posted here: https://louisbarclay.notion.site/Unfollow-Everything-cease-and-desist-letter-from-Facebook-ea219169421b457bb7ce010b7bf9ce1f https://louisbarclay.notion.site/Unfollow-Everything-cease-a... It’s not strictly about automating API requests. He was also using Facebook’s trademarks (easy target for valid C&D requests). He was also using the plugin to collect data from users, including some very detailed data for a subset that opted in to a study. Facebook doesn’t take kindly to people making extensions that use their trademarks and collect user data, no matter how trivial.

jjulius 5y ago
>Facebook doesn’t take kindly to people making extensions that ... collect user data, no matter how trivial. The hypocrisy here is absolutely hilarious.
akersten 5y ago
> He was also using Facebook’s trademarks Seems like the only potentially legally valid part of it. And even then, if he's not misrepresenting his product as made by Facebook (just "compatible with Facebook" or "use while you're on Facebook") I think it's still a stretch. Can a cottage industry survive without ever being allowed to even name the companion products for which the extension is designed?
- MereInterest 5y ago
  To my understanding, the original purpose of trademarks was to protect the buyer. If I buy a bicycle listed as being from X, I can expect that it was manufactured by X, or at the very least endorsed by X (e.g. Kirkland products). If a different manufacturer Y labels their product as X, then I no longer have that certainty. But corporations have taken that and gone way too far on it. If I describe a product as being "compatible with X" or "fits on an X", that in no way makes a claim that it is manufactured by X. Like how tv manufacturers should be able to say "Perfect for watching the Super Bowl this weekend.", but avoid doing so for fear of being sued. There's no endorsement at all there, nor any dilution of the trademark, and yet it gets treated as though the words themselves are protected.

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago

> I hope there is no legal basis for this threat Does that really matter? If a malicious company like Facebook wants to ruin your life and drown you in lawsuits, they are able to do so. By the time it is determined that the person under attack by Facebook is actually in the right, the damage will be done.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

croes 5y ago

Not so fast. What if you bought games in the Oculus store? You can't just ban someone and remove his access to paid software because of a browser extension. What about my computer, my browser my rules?