7 ms·

Well, what did they expect? Does anyone think a company will sit around while you strip their app of their revenue source and republish it? Now I'm all for try

Well, what did they expect? Does anyone think a company will sit around while you strip their app of their revenue source and republish it? Now I'm all for trying, I use adblockers and SponsorBlock, but we all know that they're unofficial methods that could be taken down at any time. That's exactly what happened to Vanced.

Dylan16807 4y ago
> Well, what did they expect? It would be good if companies did not ban you on one site for violating the TOS of a completely different site.
- joshuaheard 4y ago
  I could see banning the app, and maybe their business accounts. But to track down the developers and ban their personal accounts seems rather extreme.
- voidwtf 4y ago
  https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870 https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870 Except for the part where the TOS explicitly states that you will be banned from all Metas products…
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    No, not except. That is a bad thing, and putting it in the TOS does not change whether it is a bad thing.
    - voidwtf 4y ago
      I don’t disagree on that point. I’m just making it clear it was in the TOS. I don’t want my gmail account permanently because of a comment I made on YouTube, nor do I think that should be commonplace. I’m not sure what the best solution is though. I once worked for a server hosting company that had a few different “branches”. It was pretty common to see different types of misuse or abuse. Whether it be credit card theft, hosting copyrighted content, or hosting phishing sites. I would go out of my way to monitor for and ban all associated accounts at all branches of the company. Not because I wanted to ban their personal accounts, but because 99% of the time those associated accounts would immediately engage in the same behavior. You can sit there all day playing whack-a-mole, or you can exterminate the mole.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    This argument feels like it would also work to support indentured servitude, since people agree to that at the beginning too.
    - voidwtf 4y ago
      That’s a pretty hot take, can you elaborate? I’m not sure I understand.
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        Your argument is basically "what Meta did is okay since you agreed to it in the terms of service that you accepted", right? I'm saying that like selling yourself into indentured servitude, accepting Meta's TOS is not always a completely free choice.
        chaostheory 4y ago
        If you don't like Meta's terms, don't use Meta products and services. It's that simple. There's no indentured servitude because you're not giving Meta free work. In this case, people don't want to pay for Meta services by viewing ads. If you don't want to pay, don't use the service.
        josephcsible 4y ago
        > don't use Meta products and services. It's that simple. Doesn't that basically completely cut you off from electronic communication with everyone else in most European countries, where WhatsApp has basically completely replaced SMS?
        chaostheory 4y ago
        SMS didn’t disappear. You just have to pay for it with money. WhatsApp also isn’t the only IM on the market. If you want to use it, you have to use it on their terms.I didn’t like the terms so I dont use it. I prefer paying Apple upfront with money instead of paying other companies with my privacy and attention.
anigbrowl 4y ago
I could totally understand blocking the app, but going after the developers' personal accounts is petty and weak. OGapp should lean into it and offer to make something better; Meta's behavior is the sign of a failing company that's ripe for disruption, and many people are just looking for an excuse to get off the platform.

Dylan16807 4y ago

> Well, what did they expect? It would be good if companies did not ban you on one site for violating the TOS of a completely different site.

joshuaheard 4y ago
I could see banning the app, and maybe their business accounts. But to track down the developers and ban their personal accounts seems rather extreme.
voidwtf 4y ago
https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870 https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870 Except for the part where the TOS explicitly states that you will be banned from all Metas products…
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  No, not except. That is a bad thing, and putting it in the TOS does not change whether it is a bad thing.
  - voidwtf 4y ago
    I don’t disagree on that point. I’m just making it clear it was in the TOS. I don’t want my gmail account permanently because of a comment I made on YouTube, nor do I think that should be commonplace. I’m not sure what the best solution is though. I once worked for a server hosting company that had a few different “branches”. It was pretty common to see different types of misuse or abuse. Whether it be credit card theft, hosting copyrighted content, or hosting phishing sites. I would go out of my way to monitor for and ban all associated accounts at all branches of the company. Not because I wanted to ban their personal accounts, but because 99% of the time those associated accounts would immediately engage in the same behavior. You can sit there all day playing whack-a-mole, or you can exterminate the mole.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  This argument feels like it would also work to support indentured servitude, since people agree to that at the beginning too.
  - voidwtf 4y ago
    That’s a pretty hot take, can you elaborate? I’m not sure I understand.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      Your argument is basically "what Meta did is okay since you agreed to it in the terms of service that you accepted", right? I'm saying that like selling yourself into indentured servitude, accepting Meta's TOS is not always a completely free choice.
      - chaostheory 4y ago
        If you don't like Meta's terms, don't use Meta products and services. It's that simple. There's no indentured servitude because you're not giving Meta free work. In this case, people don't want to pay for Meta services by viewing ads. If you don't want to pay, don't use the service.
        josephcsible 4y ago
        > don't use Meta products and services. It's that simple. Doesn't that basically completely cut you off from electronic communication with everyone else in most European countries, where WhatsApp has basically completely replaced SMS?
        chaostheory 4y ago
        SMS didn’t disappear. You just have to pay for it with money. WhatsApp also isn’t the only IM on the market. If you want to use it, you have to use it on their terms.I didn’t like the terms so I dont use it. I prefer paying Apple upfront with money instead of paying other companies with my privacy and attention.

anigbrowl 4y ago

I could totally understand blocking the app, but going after the developers' personal accounts is petty and weak. OGapp should lean into it and offer to make something better; Meta's behavior is the sign of a failing company that's ripe for disruption, and many people are just looking for an excuse to get off the platform.