4 ms·

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

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?
  - Kbelicius 4y ago
    > So, it has now become against the TOS to have a third-party make requests on your behalf. Me installing a third party FB client on my phone and making request through that is not a third party making requests to FB otherwise browsers would then have to be classified as third party. There is no requirement for a third party client to go through a third party server.
Dylan16807 4y ago
> so I built my own machine that consumes your resources They designed the machine. It's the users that are making instances and running it, right?
- voidwtf 4y ago
  If the users were building the source code and deploying it to their devices, sure. That’s not what’s happening here though. This isn’t DeCSS, this is a company trying to build and sell a DVD duplicator that advertises that it rips copyrighted content and also removes the previews.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    It's hardly a duplicator. If anything it's a DVD player that removes previews, and that sounds like a great product.
vachina 4y ago
I fail to see how this is different from augmenting a website with Adblock and userscript. If you don’t want to leak info then don’t expose it on the API, private or not.
- voidwtf 4y ago
  It’s different because they didn’t make the information/source code available on GitHub and say “go at it”, allowing each user to choose to violate the TOS. They actively facilitated the behavior and received funding to do so. Also sites block users with AdBlock enabled all the time, how is this any different?
  - seba_dos1 4y ago
    > how is this any different? It's not, blocking users with ad blockers is not tolerable either. If you're unhappy with people consuming content on their own computers, find a different business model that you're happy with.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    Which social networks will permanently ban you if you ever visit them with an adblocker enabled?
josephcsible 4y ago
What The OG App did was the equivalent of building and distributing a third-party telephone, rather than everyone having to use one rented from Ma Bell.
- voidwtf 4y ago
  This is only true if you also agree that they used a pair of alligator clips and attached it to the copper wires on the pole as well. The infrastructure has real costs, the api development, storage, and maintenance that they aren’t compensating Meta to use.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- warent 4y ago
  In this case, the third-party telephone is allowing unlimited free calls using Ma Bell's infrastructure... I agree with you that Meta is ass for society. Simultaneously, these third-parties are parasitic. Ultimately everyone sucks here.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    The solution to that is to fix your infrastructure to not trust the client, rather than trying to enforce use of a particular client.
    - cryptonector 4y ago
      The "infrastructure" here is advertising, or rather, the need to fund real world things with advertising because there's no way yet to micrometer what users consume on the internet and get them cough up money for it.
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        Sure, that might be a problem. But it should be Meta's problem, and they shouldn't be able to make it The OG App's problem or any individual user's problem.

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?
- Kbelicius 4y ago
  > So, it has now become against the TOS to have a third-party make requests on your behalf. Me installing a third party FB client on my phone and making request through that is not a third party making requests to FB otherwise browsers would then have to be classified as third party. There is no requirement for a third party client to go through a third party server.

Dylan16807 4y ago

> so I built my own machine that consumes your resources They designed the machine. It's the users that are making instances and running it, right?

voidwtf 4y ago
If the users were building the source code and deploying it to their devices, sure. That’s not what’s happening here though. This isn’t DeCSS, this is a company trying to build and sell a DVD duplicator that advertises that it rips copyrighted content and also removes the previews.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  It's hardly a duplicator. If anything it's a DVD player that removes previews, and that sounds like a great product.

vachina 4y ago

I fail to see how this is different from augmenting a website with Adblock and userscript. If you don’t want to leak info then don’t expose it on the API, private or not.

voidwtf 4y ago
It’s different because they didn’t make the information/source code available on GitHub and say “go at it”, allowing each user to choose to violate the TOS. They actively facilitated the behavior and received funding to do so. Also sites block users with AdBlock enabled all the time, how is this any different?
- seba_dos1 4y ago
  > how is this any different? It's not, blocking users with ad blockers is not tolerable either. If you're unhappy with people consuming content on their own computers, find a different business model that you're happy with.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Which social networks will permanently ban you if you ever visit them with an adblocker enabled?

josephcsible 4y ago

What The OG App did was the equivalent of building and distributing a third-party telephone, rather than everyone having to use one rented from Ma Bell.

voidwtf 4y ago
This is only true if you also agree that they used a pair of alligator clips and attached it to the copper wires on the pole as well. The infrastructure has real costs, the api development, storage, and maintenance that they aren’t compensating Meta to use.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
warent 4y ago
In this case, the third-party telephone is allowing unlimited free calls using Ma Bell's infrastructure... I agree with you that Meta is ass for society. Simultaneously, these third-parties are parasitic. Ultimately everyone sucks here.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  The solution to that is to fix your infrastructure to not trust the client, rather than trying to enforce use of a particular client.
  - cryptonector 4y ago
    The "infrastructure" here is advertising, or rather, the need to fund real world things with advertising because there's no way yet to micrometer what users consume on the internet and get them cough up money for it.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      Sure, that might be a problem. But it should be Meta's problem, and they shouldn't be able to make it The OG App's problem or any individual user's problem.