4 ms·

Founder of the company behind the OG app here. Just wanted to give my thoughts on the whole situation. This is in addition to our official statement here: http

Founder of the company behind the OG app here. Just wanted to give my thoughts on the whole situation. This is in addition to our official statement here: https://twitter.com/TheOGapp_/status/1575217497011200001 https://twitter.com/TheOGapp_/status/1575217497011200001 I want to start off by saying that everyone in this whole comments section has been making points as if what they are saying is "fact". Nothing here is "fact" because there are no laws around API usage. I don't think lawyers even know what HTML or JSON mean. Everything here is an opinion and there are clearly opinions on all parts of the spectrum. Meta is currently completely within their rights to put in their terms of service that there should be no 3rd party clients, there should be no way to access their APIs, etc. That is true. However, we believe that shouldn't be the case. People should be allowed to have the freedom to choose how they use platforms. People should be allowed to control which apps access their data and what they do with it. Some people in the comments mentioned that this is very similar to "Ma Bell" and the whole anti-trust situation along with that, and it very much is. We are stifling innovation and creation of jobs, wealth, and truly wonderful products in the social space because of the stronghold Meta has over the market. For example, both Brazil (PIX) and India (UPI) have open instant payment systems that came about due to Government anti-trust regulation that encouraged competition. This led to a boom in digital payments and was a huge boon for both countries. If you have tried either of these systems, you would know that they are leagues ahead of more "modern" countries like the US. By not allowing interoperability and portability of social networks, and user data at large, we are stifling the growth of the economy and of the products that can be built. Listen, this is no small amount. Social networks were responsible for onboarding the first billion people onto the internet. These tools now help everyone in the world communicate at all times. Do not underestimate the impact they have and the reduction in value across the world because they are not interoperable. Users who use UPI in India have a choice of over a dozen payment apps, that work with all banks, and they can send money to any other bank, instantly, 24/7! This is HUGE. Similarly, social networks that allow for portability and interoperability will allow for dozens of different apps that fit specific use-cases, allowing for more internet users, and a greater value to the entire world. So, we built OG because we thought this was the first step to realize this vision of the social internet that was truly open, portable, and interoperable.

RamblingCTO 4y ago
Getting to interoperability won't be achieved by questionable third party clients essentially abusing the API of a company. What a weird way of thinking. Work out standards, lobby for them etc. You very well knew what you were doing and what you'd risk. > People should be allowed to have the freedom to choose how they use platforms I absolutely despise meta but this is just weird. If a company provides a service, they can do so as they see fit, as long as they are compliant to laws etc. If you don't like it, don't use it. There are nice projects like mastodon or matrix, which seem to have very similar goals as you. I just can't shake the feeling of you guys being shady af. You can't be naive to think this would work? You have no privacy policy, circumvent the compliance of meta (which is afterall, one of the most watched companies) and essentially proxy all user data. WTF? And who on earth would fund that?
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  > Work out standards, lobby for them etc. Back in the AT&T monopoly it required a third-party device (the Carterphone) to actually be released on the market for their anti-competitive terms to be challenged and eventually struck down in court. > circumvent the compliance of meta How? If an idiot user gives their credentials to a shady third-party, it's the user's fault for compromising their own data, not Meta's. If a user were to print out pages of the Facebook web UI containing private data and then start distributing them in the streets, would you also blame Meta, and not the user? What about if the user writes down the private data manually, and then distributes it? Etc. > essentially proxy all user data What's wrong with proxying? Plenty of mobile e-mail clients for example do proxying as well because there's just no way to maintain a persistent connection or do regular polling on mobile devices due to network & battery life constraints. Is there any evidence they captured or misused the proxied data for beyond what's needed to provide the service? Also keep in mind that a vast majority of Instagram data is public by design - people put it out there because they want it to be seen, and it can be seen by anyone accessing the web interface. The people who ultimately own the data often don't want it to be private. > who on earth would fund that? Someone who's actually interested in setting the legal precedent that would allow this behavior and invalidate ToS preventing it?

RamblingCTO 4y ago

Getting to interoperability won't be achieved by questionable third party clients essentially abusing the API of a company. What a weird way of thinking. Work out standards, lobby for them etc. You very well knew what you were doing and what you'd risk. > People should be allowed to have the freedom to choose how they use platforms I absolutely despise meta but this is just weird. If a company provides a service, they can do so as they see fit, as long as they are compliant to laws etc. If you don't like it, don't use it. There are nice projects like mastodon or matrix, which seem to have very similar goals as you. I just can't shake the feeling of you guys being shady af. You can't be naive to think this would work? You have no privacy policy, circumvent the compliance of meta (which is afterall, one of the most watched companies) and essentially proxy all user data. WTF? And who on earth would fund that?

Nextgrid 4y ago
> Work out standards, lobby for them etc. Back in the AT&T monopoly it required a third-party device (the Carterphone) to actually be released on the market for their anti-competitive terms to be challenged and eventually struck down in court. > circumvent the compliance of meta How? If an idiot user gives their credentials to a shady third-party, it's the user's fault for compromising their own data, not Meta's. If a user were to print out pages of the Facebook web UI containing private data and then start distributing them in the streets, would you also blame Meta, and not the user? What about if the user writes down the private data manually, and then distributes it? Etc. > essentially proxy all user data What's wrong with proxying? Plenty of mobile e-mail clients for example do proxying as well because there's just no way to maintain a persistent connection or do regular polling on mobile devices due to network & battery life constraints. Is there any evidence they captured or misused the proxied data for beyond what's needed to provide the service? Also keep in mind that a vast majority of Instagram data is public by design - people put it out there because they want it to be seen, and it can be seen by anyone accessing the web interface. The people who ultimately own the data often don't want it to be private. > who on earth would fund that? Someone who's actually interested in setting the legal precedent that would allow this behavior and invalidate ToS preventing it?