9 ms·

demanded that I agree to never again create tools that interact with Facebook or its other services. How is this legal in any shape or form? It is a browser ex

by akudha 5y ago

demanded that I agree to never again create tools that interact with Facebook or its other services. How is this legal in any shape or form? It is a browser extension, running on users' browsers, installed intentionally by his users. This is insane. The level of arrogance and entitlement here is mind blowing.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>How is this legal in any shape or form? IANAL, but have some experience with this from a business matter, resulting in obtaining advice of counsel. And, yeah this is not a criminal matter, but a civil one, so you're right that the developer isn't likely in civil breach unless they are using FB resources (e.g. API or SDK) that they access under agreement with FB and are violating. The irony is that if the FB standard user agreement prevents users from, say, using software to programmatically access the site, then it's the user of the extension who would be in breach with FB. So, as long as the developer doesn't use the extension on their own FB account, then FB doesn't have much to stand on (and even then the C&D would only be applicable to the developer's use of the extension as a user). On a related side note, if the extension actually did something not related to a specific account (e.g. scraped a public profile while not signed in), then even the user would likely not be in breach, as there is no affirmative assent (i.e. clickwrap) to terms of use required to simply visit the site.
- invokestatic 5y ago
  There’s actually a concept of tortious interference, which can make you liable for assisting other people in breaking a terms of service, even if you never broke it yourself.
  - zja 5y ago
    Sounds similar to what happened when Blizzard sued a company for selling World of Warcraft hacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(bot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(bot)
    - invokestatic 5y ago
      Funny you should mention. I only know this cuz I used to sell cheats for games.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    Yeah, I'm familiar with that concept too and actually nearly filed an action against a competitor for it (wish I had, as it was clear cut). But, my understanding of the standard for that particular tort would make it difficult for FB to prevail. In particular, the two tests that might be hardest to meet are that FB would have to show damages and they would have to show that the developer's conduct led to the breach. I'm not sure that merely creating a tool qualifies, especially for the latter. The user is not coerced or compelled by the developer to violate his agreement with FB. Again, IANAL. Just thinking back to legal counsel I've received (and quite possibly misapplied here). Definitely plenty of gray area in civil law. EDIT: Thinking back to this specific extension, it may be even harder for FB to prevail on tortious interference. The tool merely automates actions that FB makes freely available to its users. And to some extent all access to a site is "programmatic". So, I wonder how this compares to ad blockers or even other built-in browser capabilities that could "programmatically" alter the user experience when accessing FB's site. Really interesting.
- polynomial 5y ago
  Browser extensions don't kill FB accounts. People kill FB accounts.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  I would suppose for any extension to work with Facebook the site it would need to be developed with knowledge of a Facebook page's DOM, as such the developer would need to go look at the page to be used and write code to do what the extension needs to do. Thus I guess one legal argument would be that the ability of the extension to work proves the developer's use of Facebook the service even though they have been banned. So maybe there is something from that they can build up an argument, although it starts to sound far-fetched enough I might expect a judge to not buy it.
rmah 5y ago
It's legal in the same way it's legal for me to demand that you never eat tomatoes again. It's also legal for you to demand that your neighbor turn off his TV. Anyone non-government party can pretty much demand anything from anyone else. It means next to nothing. Not trying to be snarky here. It's just that I find it odd that so many people seem to think that the law is about what's permitted when it's really about what's not permitted. At least in the USA. Arrogance and entitlement on Facebook's part though, that I agree with.
- hetspookjee 5y ago
  Now add the ingredients that you have a vested interest in setting an example, and have infinite resources to do so. Say you set aside a billion dollar to hammer your neighbour with lawsuit after lawsuit, no matter how frivolous. You can run this way for years while consistently losing. It’s not a matter of being right or wrong, it’s a matter of who has the longest breath. Sure After several years the tables might turn and the judges may find it odd you’re claiming such weird things, but then again you’ve been going at it for years already. So sure there might be a moral argument on what is right or wrong, but the law in practice does not work like that. Unless a judge sets an example by nipping this behaviour in the bud with excessive fees, but good luck seeing that ever happen. The only way I’d see the neighbour win is if a whale of an activist Party would side with him and make it clear that any legal fight will be taken up with the biggest defence possible, but this is equally unlikely to happen unfortunately.
  - rmah 5y ago
    I wasn't making a moral argument, I was making a practical one. The demand, in and of itself, means very little. Being notified may matter, but the fact that it was couched as a "demand" rather than a "request" is irrelevant. And the notice will only matter in so far as you are actually in breech of a contract or there is a tort or you are breaking a law. As you illustrated, it's primarily the ability to punish non-compliance that actually matters (via procedure, public relations, etc). Through it all though, the fact that the other party demanded something of you instead of politely asked" or humbly requested is not really relevant. What matters is that you got notice. That's it.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> The level of arrogance and entitlement here is mind blowing. Yeah. They put a server on the internet but we're not supposed to talk to it. We can only do it on their terms. Gotta control those users so they don't hurt a billion dollar company's business interests. I remember the pirate bay's responses to legal threats. That's exactly the kind of reply Facebook deserves.
- quenix 5y ago
  What were the pirate bay's responses, if you don't mind?
  - InvaderFizz 5y ago
    They were quite fun to read at the time. Here is an old archive link to some: https://web.archive.org/web/20111223101839/http://thepiratebay.org/legal https://web.archive.org/web/20111223101839/http://thepirateb...
    - noptd 5y ago
      And their responses have aged brilliantly to boot.
    - akudha 5y ago
      Please don't sue us right now, our lawyer is passed out in an alley from too much moonshine, so please atleast wait until he's found and doesn't have a huge hangover... The problem here seems to be that the material is unreleased? If that is the case, you can easily fix the problem by releasing it. We'll be more than glad to help you distribute it - free of charge! - to our users. Thank you for the link. Their responses are hilarious, haha
  - radmuzom 5y ago
    If you are interested in a more detailed story, listen to this Darknet Diaries interview with one of the co-founders of PirateBay. https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/92/ https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/92/
chrisseaton 5y ago
> How is this legal in any shape or form? Are you asking how it's legal that you can demand someone to do something? How is anything legal? Because there's no law against it. There's no law against demanding something. You can demand (almost) anything of anyone you want.
- throwaway14356 5y ago
  what if you have some kind of leverage over them?
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Yes that’s usually legal. Again - what law are you thinking of when you ask if it’s illegal?
quotemstr 5y ago
> How is this legal in any shape or form? It is a browser extension, running on users' browsers, installed intentionally by his users. This is insane. The level of arrogance and entitlement here is mind blowing. Google banned the Chrome extension "bypass paywalls" for doing nothing bad except annoying Google's friends. This is why walled gardens are bad. It's not Google's place or Facebook's place or Apple's place or anyone's place to tell me what programs I can run on my own computer.
chemmail 5y ago
They think they own the internet. But in some countries they do.
javajosh 5y ago
>How is this legal... In theory, legality is the Judge's opinion of the law applied to circumstance. To even approach this state is extremely expensive and takes a great deal of time - on the order of years. So, for the most part we're all on our own. And in that context, legality doesn't matter. At all. What does matter is leverage. The justice system itself is, ironically, most often used as leverage, not as a service for determining legality, but as a threat of the expense and time of getting to that determination. It's sickening, but that's how it is.

by akudha 5y ago

unclebucknasty 5y ago

>How is this legal in any shape or form? IANAL, but have some experience with this from a business matter, resulting in obtaining advice of counsel. And, yeah this is not a criminal matter, but a civil one, so you're right that the developer isn't likely in civil breach unless they are using FB resources (e.g. API or SDK) that they access under agreement with FB and are violating. The irony is that if the FB standard user agreement prevents users from, say, using software to programmatically access the site, then it's the user of the extension who would be in breach with FB. So, as long as the developer doesn't use the extension on their own FB account, then FB doesn't have much to stand on (and even then the C&D would only be applicable to the developer's use of the extension as a user). On a related side note, if the extension actually did something not related to a specific account (e.g. scraped a public profile while not signed in), then even the user would likely not be in breach, as there is no affirmative assent (i.e. clickwrap) to terms of use required to simply visit the site.

invokestatic 5y ago
There’s actually a concept of tortious interference, which can make you liable for assisting other people in breaking a terms of service, even if you never broke it yourself.
- zja 5y ago
  Sounds similar to what happened when Blizzard sued a company for selling World of Warcraft hacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(bot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(bot)
  - invokestatic 5y ago
    Funny you should mention. I only know this cuz I used to sell cheats for games.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  Yeah, I'm familiar with that concept too and actually nearly filed an action against a competitor for it (wish I had, as it was clear cut). But, my understanding of the standard for that particular tort would make it difficult for FB to prevail. In particular, the two tests that might be hardest to meet are that FB would have to show damages and they would have to show that the developer's conduct led to the breach. I'm not sure that merely creating a tool qualifies, especially for the latter. The user is not coerced or compelled by the developer to violate his agreement with FB. Again, IANAL. Just thinking back to legal counsel I've received (and quite possibly misapplied here). Definitely plenty of gray area in civil law. EDIT: Thinking back to this specific extension, it may be even harder for FB to prevail on tortious interference. The tool merely automates actions that FB makes freely available to its users. And to some extent all access to a site is "programmatic". So, I wonder how this compares to ad blockers or even other built-in browser capabilities that could "programmatically" alter the user experience when accessing FB's site. Really interesting.
polynomial 5y ago
Browser extensions don't kill FB accounts. People kill FB accounts.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
I would suppose for any extension to work with Facebook the site it would need to be developed with knowledge of a Facebook page's DOM, as such the developer would need to go look at the page to be used and write code to do what the extension needs to do. Thus I guess one legal argument would be that the ability of the extension to work proves the developer's use of Facebook the service even though they have been banned. So maybe there is something from that they can build up an argument, although it starts to sound far-fetched enough I might expect a judge to not buy it.

rmah 5y ago

It's legal in the same way it's legal for me to demand that you never eat tomatoes again. It's also legal for you to demand that your neighbor turn off his TV. Anyone non-government party can pretty much demand anything from anyone else. It means next to nothing. Not trying to be snarky here. It's just that I find it odd that so many people seem to think that the law is about what's permitted when it's really about what's not permitted. At least in the USA. Arrogance and entitlement on Facebook's part though, that I agree with.

hetspookjee 5y ago
Now add the ingredients that you have a vested interest in setting an example, and have infinite resources to do so. Say you set aside a billion dollar to hammer your neighbour with lawsuit after lawsuit, no matter how frivolous. You can run this way for years while consistently losing. It’s not a matter of being right or wrong, it’s a matter of who has the longest breath. Sure After several years the tables might turn and the judges may find it odd you’re claiming such weird things, but then again you’ve been going at it for years already. So sure there might be a moral argument on what is right or wrong, but the law in practice does not work like that. Unless a judge sets an example by nipping this behaviour in the bud with excessive fees, but good luck seeing that ever happen. The only way I’d see the neighbour win is if a whale of an activist Party would side with him and make it clear that any legal fight will be taken up with the biggest defence possible, but this is equally unlikely to happen unfortunately.
- rmah 5y ago
  I wasn't making a moral argument, I was making a practical one. The demand, in and of itself, means very little. Being notified may matter, but the fact that it was couched as a "demand" rather than a "request" is irrelevant. And the notice will only matter in so far as you are actually in breech of a contract or there is a tort or you are breaking a law. As you illustrated, it's primarily the ability to punish non-compliance that actually matters (via procedure, public relations, etc). Through it all though, the fact that the other party demanded something of you instead of politely asked" or humbly requested is not really relevant. What matters is that you got notice. That's it.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> The level of arrogance and entitlement here is mind blowing. Yeah. They put a server on the internet but we're not supposed to talk to it. We can only do it on their terms. Gotta control those users so they don't hurt a billion dollar company's business interests. I remember the pirate bay's responses to legal threats. That's exactly the kind of reply Facebook deserves.

quenix 5y ago
What were the pirate bay's responses, if you don't mind?
- InvaderFizz 5y ago
  They were quite fun to read at the time. Here is an old archive link to some: https://web.archive.org/web/20111223101839/http://thepiratebay.org/legal https://web.archive.org/web/20111223101839/http://thepirateb...
  - noptd 5y ago
    And their responses have aged brilliantly to boot.
  - akudha 5y ago
    Please don't sue us right now, our lawyer is passed out in an alley from too much moonshine, so please atleast wait until he's found and doesn't have a huge hangover... The problem here seems to be that the material is unreleased? If that is the case, you can easily fix the problem by releasing it. We'll be more than glad to help you distribute it - free of charge! - to our users. Thank you for the link. Their responses are hilarious, haha
- radmuzom 5y ago
  If you are interested in a more detailed story, listen to this Darknet Diaries interview with one of the co-founders of PirateBay. https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/92/ https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/92/

chrisseaton 5y ago

> How is this legal in any shape or form? Are you asking how it's legal that you can demand someone to do something? How is anything legal? Because there's no law against it. There's no law against demanding something. You can demand (almost) anything of anyone you want.

throwaway14356 5y ago
what if you have some kind of leverage over them?
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Yes that’s usually legal. Again - what law are you thinking of when you ask if it’s illegal?

quotemstr 5y ago

> How is this legal in any shape or form? It is a browser extension, running on users' browsers, installed intentionally by his users. This is insane. The level of arrogance and entitlement here is mind blowing. Google banned the Chrome extension "bypass paywalls" for doing nothing bad except annoying Google's friends. This is why walled gardens are bad. It's not Google's place or Facebook's place or Apple's place or anyone's place to tell me what programs I can run on my own computer.

chemmail 5y ago

They think they own the internet. But in some countries they do.

javajosh 5y ago

>How is this legal... In theory, legality is the Judge's opinion of the law applied to circumstance. To even approach this state is extremely expensive and takes a great deal of time - on the order of years. So, for the most part we're all on our own. And in that context, legality doesn't matter. At all. What does matter is leverage. The justice system itself is, ironically, most often used as leverage, not as a service for determining legality, but as a threat of the expense and time of getting to that determination. It's sickening, but that's how it is.