5 ms·

It's worth noting that the app received $1M in preseed funding: https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/27/og-app-promises-you-an-ad-free-instagram-feed/ https://techcru

It's worth noting that the app received $1M in preseed funding: https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/27/og-app-promises-you-an-ad-free-instagram-feed/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/27/og-app-promises-you-an-ad-... It's also worth noting that the Instagram API is extremely locked down for typical users (which is the reason why there hasn't been a clone like this) as it is limited to Businesses and Creators, but the app demonstrates features not available by the official API: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/instagram https://developers.facebook.com/docs/instagram They tweeted that they reverse-engineered the Android API, which would likely get personally you banned anywhere, even without a business: https://twitter.com/TheOGapp_/status/1574811387737407490 https://twitter.com/TheOGapp_/status/1574811387737407490

seba_dos1 4y ago
> They tweeted that they reverse-engineered the Android API, which would likely get personally you banned anywhere The question is - how do we even allow it do be legal? Not being able to reverse engineer applications running on your own devices is some kind of bullshit dystopia, tolerated only because average citizen is not technical enough to realize how dystopian it is.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  I have some trouble with "telling a third party developer they can't replace parts of your server-driven app for their own profit is a dystopia."
  - seba_dos1 4y ago
    Are you using any browser extensions that do something with website content?
    - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
      No, and that isn't equivalent
      - seba_dos1 4y ago
        > No You either hate yourself or you don't use the Web too much. > that isn't equivalent It absolutely is. There's a service out there that's meant to communicate with applications running on my computer. What my computer does is 100% up to me. If this means your business model that relies on locally running code is hurt, that's something you should have factored in into your decision to choose that business model.
        JohnHaugeland 4y ago
        > You either hate yourself or you don't use the Web too much. This doesn't seem like an appropriate thing to say. Good luck to you.
        seba_dos1 4y ago
        Is the Web going to be sad because of what I said about it? Let me rephrase: "browsing today's Web as-is is an extremely miserable experience and the fact that you can put up with it doesn't mean everyone else should".
- voidwtf 4y ago
  Listen, I really didn’t like the way your machine consumed your resources, so I built my own machine that consumes your resources. You should totally let me do this because it’s what your users want. Oh, and I also told your users to stop paying you because that’s anti consumer. Meta is wrong in a lot of ways, but this isn’t the right way to fix the problem. Just remove Meta from the equation entirely.
  - GauntletWizard 4y ago
    I completely agree that this isn't the right way to fight Meta, but I disagree about "Letting" you build a machine that consumes resources. It's not OG or Facebook's machine that is consuming Facebook's API Resources. It is software that is running on the User's hardware. The user should be, and generally is, allowed to make any request to Facebook that's not actively malicious - Using whatever software they choose as their user agent. That means a third party client, developed with the express intent of not showing ads. It's my computer, not yours,
    - voidwtf 4y ago
      I agree with you and disagree with you at the same time. Here’s the rub though, if you make and distribute a thing, with the sole intent that the thing will be used for stealing something. Is that ok? If I made a device that could unlock and start a car, that required no knowledge of how the underlying tech worked, and I advertised it as “OGTransportation, transportation like you want it. No car payment, no paying for gas. Just get in and drive” Not sure I’m feeling the whole argument.
    - fsociety 4y ago
      That’s an idealistic view. The pragmatic one is to turn the page back a few years to Cambridge Analytica. There is a good quote from Zuck testifying to Congress in this article https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/11/mark-zuckerbergs-testimony-to-congress-the-key-moments https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/11/mark-zuck... > “When we heard back from Cambridge Analytica that they had told us that they weren’t using the data and deleted it, we considered it a closed case. In retrospect, that was clearly a mistake. We shouldn’t have taken their word for it. We’ve updated our policy to make sure we don’t make that mistake again.” If there is a third-party server in the middle of you and the service, you kind of have to assume that they are doing something with the data. It is made worse because some developers aren’t doing questionable things. Others are doing questionable things. But you have no way of discerning between the two groups. So, it has now become against the TOS to have a third-party make requests on your behalf. Should we believe in the internet’s ability to be unequivocally good, or should we look at history and realize data protection is a serious problem?
- userbinator 4y ago
  This is the point that Richard Stallman tried to hit over 2 decades ago with Right To Read (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html ) and got close but not quite --- yes, source code is valuable, but even without source code you should still have the "right to read" what your own computer executes, as otherwise it is not truly yours. In fact I'd go as far as arguing that true software freedom isn't about availability of source code, but what you are legally permitted to even without.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  If you want to be able to reverse engineer everything on your phone, then I would say that Android and iOS are not for you.
- scoutt 4y ago
  In Europe, reverse engineering is legal by the means of observation, and decompilation in some cases, as long as you have a license for using a program: https://vidstromlabs.com/blog/the-legal-boundaries-of-reverse-engineering-in-the-eu/ https://vidstromlabs.com/blog/the-legal-boundaries-of-revers...
yieldcrv 4y ago
> It's worth noting that the app received $1M in preseed funding Guess the investors should have stuck to real estate
- cloudking 4y ago
  Great due diligence on this deal. Who thought it was okay to rip off the old UI and reverse engineer the API?
  - worthless-trash 4y ago
    Investors barely know head from tail, you're expecting way too much. It has to sound cool.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  They could've been explicitly looking for this to happen in order to set a legal precedent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33018319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33018319
xwowsersx 4y ago
How did they get pre-seed funding for this? Unless I'm missing something, any angel who would invest $1M into a company that is building an alternative, ad-free Instagram client has to be one of the dumbest people around, no? How could anyone even conceivably think this could go on indefinitely? I'm asking genuinely because I don't get how anyone could've thought this would end any way other than by Meta putting the kibosh on this.
- dnissley 4y ago
  They could be non-technical people with no experience in software, they could have been misled by the company, or maybe they really thought they could get away with it somehow?
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  It can be that they're actively looking for this to happen to set a legal precedent legalizing this. It's not a bad argument - if you are allowed to view content in an official client, it must mean that you are licensed to view said content and that a third-party client which displays the same content should be allowed to do so since you've already got a license for it. Adversarial interoperability is our only escape of big-tech monopolies.
- searchableguy 4y ago
  Several YC companies are doing the same in later stage of funding such as beeple. They reverse engineer and bridge multiple platforms. Reverse engineering is not illegal and if there is genuine demand for an alternative client, why would investors not fund it? Eventually, you will become big enough to be next plaid and force everyone to open their APIs.

seba_dos1 4y ago

> They tweeted that they reverse-engineered the Android API, which would likely get personally you banned anywhere The question is - how do we even allow it do be legal? Not being able to reverse engineer applications running on your own devices is some kind of bullshit dystopia, tolerated only because average citizen is not technical enough to realize how dystopian it is.

JohnHaugeland 4y ago
I have some trouble with "telling a third party developer they can't replace parts of your server-driven app for their own profit is a dystopia."
- seba_dos1 4y ago
  Are you using any browser extensions that do something with website content?
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    No, and that isn't equivalent
    - seba_dos1 4y ago
      > No You either hate yourself or you don't use the Web too much. > that isn't equivalent It absolutely is. There's a service out there that's meant to communicate with applications running on my computer. What my computer does is 100% up to me. If this means your business model that relies on locally running code is hurt, that's something you should have factored in into your decision to choose that business model.
      - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
        > You either hate yourself or you don't use the Web too much. This doesn't seem like an appropriate thing to say. Good luck to you.
        seba_dos1 4y ago
        Is the Web going to be sad because of what I said about it? Let me rephrase: "browsing today's Web as-is is an extremely miserable experience and the fact that you can put up with it doesn't mean everyone else should".
voidwtf 4y ago
Listen, I really didn’t like the way your machine consumed your resources, so I built my own machine that consumes your resources. You should totally let me do this because it’s what your users want. Oh, and I also told your users to stop paying you because that’s anti consumer. Meta is wrong in a lot of ways, but this isn’t the right way to fix the problem. Just remove Meta from the equation entirely.
- GauntletWizard 4y ago
  I completely agree that this isn't the right way to fight Meta, but I disagree about "Letting" you build a machine that consumes resources. It's not OG or Facebook's machine that is consuming Facebook's API Resources. It is software that is running on the User's hardware. The user should be, and generally is, allowed to make any request to Facebook that's not actively malicious - Using whatever software they choose as their user agent. That means a third party client, developed with the express intent of not showing ads. It's my computer, not yours,
  - voidwtf 4y ago
    I agree with you and disagree with you at the same time. Here’s the rub though, if you make and distribute a thing, with the sole intent that the thing will be used for stealing something. Is that ok? If I made a device that could unlock and start a car, that required no knowledge of how the underlying tech worked, and I advertised it as “OGTransportation, transportation like you want it. No car payment, no paying for gas. Just get in and drive” Not sure I’m feeling the whole argument.
  - fsociety 4y ago
    That’s an idealistic view. The pragmatic one is to turn the page back a few years to Cambridge Analytica. There is a good quote from Zuck testifying to Congress in this article https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/11/mark-zuckerbergs-testimony-to-congress-the-key-moments https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/11/mark-zuck... > “When we heard back from Cambridge Analytica that they had told us that they weren’t using the data and deleted it, we considered it a closed case. In retrospect, that was clearly a mistake. We shouldn’t have taken their word for it. We’ve updated our policy to make sure we don’t make that mistake again.” If there is a third-party server in the middle of you and the service, you kind of have to assume that they are doing something with the data. It is made worse because some developers aren’t doing questionable things. Others are doing questionable things. But you have no way of discerning between the two groups. So, it has now become against the TOS to have a third-party make requests on your behalf. Should we believe in the internet’s ability to be unequivocally good, or should we look at history and realize data protection is a serious problem?
userbinator 4y ago
This is the point that Richard Stallman tried to hit over 2 decades ago with Right To Read (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html ) and got close but not quite --- yes, source code is valuable, but even without source code you should still have the "right to read" what your own computer executes, as otherwise it is not truly yours. In fact I'd go as far as arguing that true software freedom isn't about availability of source code, but what you are legally permitted to even without.
chaostheory 4y ago
If you want to be able to reverse engineer everything on your phone, then I would say that Android and iOS are not for you.
scoutt 4y ago
In Europe, reverse engineering is legal by the means of observation, and decompilation in some cases, as long as you have a license for using a program: https://vidstromlabs.com/blog/the-legal-boundaries-of-reverse-engineering-in-the-eu/ https://vidstromlabs.com/blog/the-legal-boundaries-of-revers...

yieldcrv 4y ago

> It's worth noting that the app received $1M in preseed funding Guess the investors should have stuck to real estate

cloudking 4y ago
Great due diligence on this deal. Who thought it was okay to rip off the old UI and reverse engineer the API?
- worthless-trash 4y ago
  Investors barely know head from tail, you're expecting way too much. It has to sound cool.
Nextgrid 4y ago
They could've been explicitly looking for this to happen in order to set a legal precedent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33018319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33018319

xwowsersx 4y ago

How did they get pre-seed funding for this? Unless I'm missing something, any angel who would invest $1M into a company that is building an alternative, ad-free Instagram client has to be one of the dumbest people around, no? How could anyone even conceivably think this could go on indefinitely? I'm asking genuinely because I don't get how anyone could've thought this would end any way other than by Meta putting the kibosh on this.

dnissley 4y ago
They could be non-technical people with no experience in software, they could have been misled by the company, or maybe they really thought they could get away with it somehow?
Nextgrid 4y ago
It can be that they're actively looking for this to happen to set a legal precedent legalizing this. It's not a bad argument - if you are allowed to view content in an official client, it must mean that you are licensed to view said content and that a third-party client which displays the same content should be allowed to do so since you've already got a license for it. Adversarial interoperability is our only escape of big-tech monopolies.
searchableguy 4y ago
Several YC companies are doing the same in later stage of funding such as beeple. They reverse engineer and bridge multiple platforms. Reverse engineering is not illegal and if there is genuine demand for an alternative client, why would investors not fund it? Eventually, you will become big enough to be next plaid and force everyone to open their APIs.