4 ms·

Web Browser is called User Agent for a reason. It is not Corporate Agent or Facebook Agent. It should grant every right to the user with regards of look and fee

Web Browser is called User Agent for a reason. It is not Corporate Agent or Facebook Agent. It should grant every right to the user with regards of look and feel of web sites, and none to the website being browsed. Web site may merely suggest how it is best served.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
I agee completely. This also extends to HTTP requests and all kinds of automation. We should be able to make a custom Facebook client if we want to. There's no reason their client must be the only one allowed to talk to their servers. Competition in this is space is obviously good for us. User agents should do what's good for us, not what's good for some company. If subverting their business interests is good for us, that's exactly what the software should do. We are its masters. Really, the user should have all the power. These companies already have what, billions of dollars? That's power enough for them.
- thriftwy 5y ago
  At least, every browser should include a grabber which will mirror all information it sees to store locally/in the cloud. Facebook bans you? You still have all your data intact. I wonder if Facebook is legally still obliged to provide all its information to the user in the EU even after banning the user, and if they comply.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > I wonder if Facebook is legally still obliged to provide all its information to the user in the EU even after banning the user, and if they comply. If they aren't, they should be. Facebook's contracts aren't above the law which says people have a right to their data. Does the law care that the user was banned? I don't think so. Nor should a banishment somehow invalidate someone's rights.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > mirror all information it sees to store locally/in the cloud. Browser history?
    - thriftwy 5y ago
      Yes, but with full content, navigable and searchable.
      - matheusmoreira 5y ago
        That would be amazing.
- feanaro 5y ago
  > There's no reason their client must be the only one allowed to talk to their servers. In a lot of cases it's also not their client in any sense of the word. Firefox, Chromium, Safari are not Facebook's.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Yeah. Their overreach in that case is even more offensive. The whole notion of Facebook having any say in the matter is absurd. Who are they to say which extensions or scripts people should or shouldn't be able to use?

matheusmoreira 5y ago

I agee completely. This also extends to HTTP requests and all kinds of automation. We should be able to make a custom Facebook client if we want to. There's no reason their client must be the only one allowed to talk to their servers. Competition in this is space is obviously good for us. User agents should do what's good for us, not what's good for some company. If subverting their business interests is good for us, that's exactly what the software should do. We are its masters. Really, the user should have all the power. These companies already have what, billions of dollars? That's power enough for them.

thriftwy 5y ago
At least, every browser should include a grabber which will mirror all information it sees to store locally/in the cloud. Facebook bans you? You still have all your data intact. I wonder if Facebook is legally still obliged to provide all its information to the user in the EU even after banning the user, and if they comply.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > I wonder if Facebook is legally still obliged to provide all its information to the user in the EU even after banning the user, and if they comply. If they aren't, they should be. Facebook's contracts aren't above the law which says people have a right to their data. Does the law care that the user was banned? I don't think so. Nor should a banishment somehow invalidate someone's rights.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > mirror all information it sees to store locally/in the cloud. Browser history?
  - thriftwy 5y ago
    Yes, but with full content, navigable and searchable.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      That would be amazing.
feanaro 5y ago
> There's no reason their client must be the only one allowed to talk to their servers. In a lot of cases it's also not their client in any sense of the word. Firefox, Chromium, Safari are not Facebook's.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Yeah. Their overreach in that case is even more offensive. The whole notion of Facebook having any say in the matter is absurd. Who are they to say which extensions or scripts people should or shouldn't be able to use?