4 ms·

He wasn't "banned for life". He received a "cease and desist" letter from Facebook's lawyer that threatened (bluffed) to escalate their challenge against the ga

He wasn't "banned for life". He received a "cease and desist" letter from Facebook's lawyer that threatened (bluffed) to escalate their challenge against the game. It's classic scare tactic employed by lawyers for unethical clients.

surfingdino 15y ago
He quotes "I must cease and not access the Facebook site(s) and/or services for any reason whatsoever." There is not EOL date in his statement.
- chc 15y ago
  It's not the "for life" anothermachine is disputing, it's the "banned." What he received sounds like a simple nastygram. I could send you a letter demanding that you give me your house, but that wouldn't mean that you are obliged to do so.
  - surfingdino 15y ago
    He's not a US citizen, he doesn't have funds to fight Facebook and he cannot count on the lawyers to help him for free. They used disproportionate force against him. I'm sure he will remember that lesson.
    - beedogs 15y ago
      If he's not a US citizen and he isn't in the US, what's he got to lose by continuing to distribute the plugin? Any judgement against him would be pretty much pointless.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    > I could send you a letter demanding that you give me your house, but that wouldn't mean that you are obliged to do so. Considering that his only two choices are to leave voluntarily or to be forced out and that Facebook can take down his Facebook pages or ban his IPs on their own, I'm not sure what point there is in arguing over whether or not being given that choice qualifies as being "banned."
    - chc 15y ago
      There is no evidence that Facebook actually would force him out, just that some lawyer decided to include some text in a nastygram. That was the point, as I understood it.
      - Natsu 15y ago
        Why do you believe that Facebook is willing to sick their lawyers on him, but unwilling to shut down his Facebook pages?
        smsm42 15y ago
        I would assume somebody in FB just said the lawyers "this guy is using our API in a way we do not condone, send him C&D so he would stop" and the lawyers made it as broad as possible since if they make it too broad nothing bad happens but if it's too narrow and the guy finds a way to wiggle around it it's their fail. Nobody in FB probably cares if the same guy would ever post a status on FB or share a picture of lolcats. They just wanted the plugin to be removed. If they also spread some fear around so nobody else does it too - it's even better for them, even though it's not what they probably cared about too much.
        Natsu 15y ago
        Yeah, sure, I get that they just want to scare him and would prefer not to escalate to legal action. But they don't need a court order to block him from Facebook or to take down his pages. If they're out to "spread some fear", why wouldn't they do that as well?
        chc 15y ago
        It's not that I believe them to be unwilling, not any more than I believe they would be unwilling to delete your account. I just am not convinced that they want to delete his account any more than they want to delete yours. All I know they want is for him to stop sending his robot.
  - lazerwalker 15y ago
    I don't think that's quite a fair comparison. As the proprietor of a brick-and-mortar business, you have the right to refuse service to anyone. Facebook is exercising their equivalent right here by refusing to let him use their online services. The "stop distributing your browser plugin" is a nastygram cease and desist, yeah, but there's nothing wrong with Facebook banning him.

surfingdino 15y ago

He quotes "I must cease and not access the Facebook site(s) and/or services for any reason whatsoever." There is not EOL date in his statement.

chc 15y ago
It's not the "for life" anothermachine is disputing, it's the "banned." What he received sounds like a simple nastygram. I could send you a letter demanding that you give me your house, but that wouldn't mean that you are obliged to do so.
- surfingdino 15y ago
  He's not a US citizen, he doesn't have funds to fight Facebook and he cannot count on the lawyers to help him for free. They used disproportionate force against him. I'm sure he will remember that lesson.
  - beedogs 15y ago
    If he's not a US citizen and he isn't in the US, what's he got to lose by continuing to distribute the plugin? Any judgement against him would be pretty much pointless.
- Natsu 15y ago
  > I could send you a letter demanding that you give me your house, but that wouldn't mean that you are obliged to do so. Considering that his only two choices are to leave voluntarily or to be forced out and that Facebook can take down his Facebook pages or ban his IPs on their own, I'm not sure what point there is in arguing over whether or not being given that choice qualifies as being "banned."
  - chc 15y ago
    There is no evidence that Facebook actually would force him out, just that some lawyer decided to include some text in a nastygram. That was the point, as I understood it.
    - Natsu 15y ago
      Why do you believe that Facebook is willing to sick their lawyers on him, but unwilling to shut down his Facebook pages?
      - smsm42 15y ago
        I would assume somebody in FB just said the lawyers "this guy is using our API in a way we do not condone, send him C&D so he would stop" and the lawyers made it as broad as possible since if they make it too broad nothing bad happens but if it's too narrow and the guy finds a way to wiggle around it it's their fail. Nobody in FB probably cares if the same guy would ever post a status on FB or share a picture of lolcats. They just wanted the plugin to be removed. If they also spread some fear around so nobody else does it too - it's even better for them, even though it's not what they probably cared about too much.
        Natsu 15y ago
        Yeah, sure, I get that they just want to scare him and would prefer not to escalate to legal action. But they don't need a court order to block him from Facebook or to take down his pages. If they're out to "spread some fear", why wouldn't they do that as well?
      - chc 15y ago
        It's not that I believe them to be unwilling, not any more than I believe they would be unwilling to delete your account. I just am not convinced that they want to delete his account any more than they want to delete yours. All I know they want is for him to stop sending his robot.
- lazerwalker 15y ago
  I don't think that's quite a fair comparison. As the proprietor of a brick-and-mortar business, you have the right to refuse service to anyone. Facebook is exercising their equivalent right here by refusing to let him use their online services. The "stop distributing your browser plugin" is a nastygram cease and desist, yeah, but there's nothing wrong with Facebook banning him.