4 ms·
It's a threat because 3rd party clients like this circumvent payment for the service via ads. If you don't like the terms, don't use the service. There are plen
by chaostheory 4y ago
It's a threat because 3rd party clients like this circumvent payment for the service via ads. If you don't like the terms, don't use the service. There are plenty of alternatives.
- Nextgrid 4y agoIf I'm allowed to close my eyes or mute the volume when an ad is playing why shouldn't I be allowed to get a machine to do this for me?
- chaostheory 4y agoBecause you can use another service where you pay in money instead of attention like Apple products and services. Let’s not pretend like there aren’t many other alternatives
- Nextgrid 4y agoThat's not actually answering the question. Is it legal to look away from ads or mute the volume? If so, it's just as legal to delegate this work to a machine (or to an assistant you hire), or at least, it should be just as legal, though again, I'm not sure that any law has been broken here. Breach of ToS != breach of law. Whether to use the service or not is a completely different question, but when it comes to Facebook, the problem is the network effects. Facebook has a monopoly on humanity's social fabric in a lot of locations, and since they don't want to intentionally interoperate and cooperate with third-party clients (so your Apple-branded client won't be able to message someone on Instagram), adversarial interoperability is the only way out.
- chaostheory 4y agoYou can decide what connects and doesn’t connect to your home network and home computer. I don’t see why Facebook can’t do the same thing. You’re free to install whatever you want on your machines, but meta is also free to block you from connecting to their servers. It’s not a utility