4 ms·

I don’t mind requiring open APIs but can we all agree that this is pretty much in direct opposition to a lot of the privacy concerns that people here talk about

I don’t mind requiring open APIs but can we all agree that this is pretty much in direct opposition to a lot of the privacy concerns that people here talk about? The more able I am to interact with an interface programmatically, the more easily I can exploit it and turn it into a giant database.

Nextgrid 4y ago
The privacy problem with Instagram isn't what people post on it (they want it to be seen publicly), it's what the disgusting company behind it collects in the background as you interact with it (who may be a non-Instagram user and just need to visit an Instagram link you've been sent). People don't use Bibliogram (or other alternatives) to access unauthorized data (all it displays is the same data visible on the web or via the app), it's to be able to browse without being stalked by Facebook and avoid their dark patterns.
- Bukhmanizer 4y ago
  People might not want to be seen publicly by everyone, which is why they allow users to choose who to show their posts to. But it’s not all that hard to exploit this by creating a popular page that lots of people end up sharing some data with. With permissive enough APIs, you instantly have a dataset. This is more or less how the Cambridge Analytica fiasco started. And yes, this was seen as a privacy problem.
  - 411111111111111 4y ago
    Do keep in mind that the people that are calling for a default API here aren't the same people that would've complained about the privacy implications of said API. This is a diverse Forum and people have various opinions.
    - Bukhmanizer 4y ago
      > Do keep in mind that the people that are calling for a default API here aren't the same people that would've complained about the privacy implications of said API. To be honest I think they would have. I just don’t think they’ve fully thought through the consequences. Worse, maybe they have thought about the consequences, but are ok with being outraged at both ends of things. Lots of people get mad and try and skirt any security/password protection measure, but also get just as mad when they inevitably get hacked because they’ve skirted all the security measures. But even after that still won’t use the security measures because of the “inconvenience”.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    > People might not want to be seen publicly by everyone Private accounts (where you have to approve followers manually) exist and as far as I know nobody is calling for making those public. A hypothetical API would still require the credentials of an approved account before returning data of such accounts. > But it’s not all that hard to exploit this by creating a popular page that lots of people end up sharing some data with I don't understand what this has to do with an API? You can create a phishing page now. > This is more or less how the Cambridge Analytica fiasco started. And yes, this was seen as a privacy problem. Cambridge Analytica created a malicious website that requested access to people's accounts and they granted it. Not only is it on idiots that approved the OAuth consent form, but it doesn't seem like it's got anything to do with what the parent comment was proposing? As far as I know all he was calling for is to provide an API that returns the public data that you can already get via the official web UI or app.
- ssizn 4y ago
  If everybody accesses Instagram from bibliogram, bypassing ads and data collection techniques, who’s going to pay for the service? I know that your answer will be “so close it”, but that’s hardly what the users of the platform want.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    You can target ads based on public data such as posts on your profile and data you voluntarily submit (such as the accounts you follow, etc).
AlecSchueler 4y ago
You can still have the same permissions on your API.

Nextgrid 4y ago

The privacy problem with Instagram isn't what people post on it (they want it to be seen publicly), it's what the disgusting company behind it collects in the background as you interact with it (who may be a non-Instagram user and just need to visit an Instagram link you've been sent). People don't use Bibliogram (or other alternatives) to access unauthorized data (all it displays is the same data visible on the web or via the app), it's to be able to browse without being stalked by Facebook and avoid their dark patterns.

Bukhmanizer 4y ago
People might not want to be seen publicly by everyone, which is why they allow users to choose who to show their posts to. But it’s not all that hard to exploit this by creating a popular page that lots of people end up sharing some data with. With permissive enough APIs, you instantly have a dataset. This is more or less how the Cambridge Analytica fiasco started. And yes, this was seen as a privacy problem.
- 411111111111111 4y ago
  Do keep in mind that the people that are calling for a default API here aren't the same people that would've complained about the privacy implications of said API. This is a diverse Forum and people have various opinions.
  - Bukhmanizer 4y ago
    > Do keep in mind that the people that are calling for a default API here aren't the same people that would've complained about the privacy implications of said API. To be honest I think they would have. I just don’t think they’ve fully thought through the consequences. Worse, maybe they have thought about the consequences, but are ok with being outraged at both ends of things. Lots of people get mad and try and skirt any security/password protection measure, but also get just as mad when they inevitably get hacked because they’ve skirted all the security measures. But even after that still won’t use the security measures because of the “inconvenience”.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  > People might not want to be seen publicly by everyone Private accounts (where you have to approve followers manually) exist and as far as I know nobody is calling for making those public. A hypothetical API would still require the credentials of an approved account before returning data of such accounts. > But it’s not all that hard to exploit this by creating a popular page that lots of people end up sharing some data with I don't understand what this has to do with an API? You can create a phishing page now. > This is more or less how the Cambridge Analytica fiasco started. And yes, this was seen as a privacy problem. Cambridge Analytica created a malicious website that requested access to people's accounts and they granted it. Not only is it on idiots that approved the OAuth consent form, but it doesn't seem like it's got anything to do with what the parent comment was proposing? As far as I know all he was calling for is to provide an API that returns the public data that you can already get via the official web UI or app.
ssizn 4y ago
If everybody accesses Instagram from bibliogram, bypassing ads and data collection techniques, who’s going to pay for the service? I know that your answer will be “so close it”, but that’s hardly what the users of the platform want.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  You can target ads based on public data such as posts on your profile and data you voluntarily submit (such as the accounts you follow, etc).

AlecSchueler 4y ago

You can still have the same permissions on your API.