4 ms·
Sorry but this post reeks of of personal hatred toward facebook and contains little value. Regardless of the method chosen to attack this issue at the end of t
by mbell 15y ago
Sorry but this post reeks of of personal hatred toward facebook and contains little value.
Regardless of the method chosen to attack this issue at the end of the day this hurts both their bottom line and their app developer's bottom line, which hurts the user base as a whole. Clearly your not a facebook user, so frankly, your opinion doesn't matter to them as long as your the minority.
Of course they would go after the source of the issue instead of their profit center (users). Are you really arguing that Facebook is evil for not attacking their users? I mean really its terrible of them to focus on their users and their profit centers over a singular third party developer, absolutely terrible.
I have a feeling if this article was titled "Facebook bans 50,000 users" you would have come here and made the same "I hate Facebook" argument.
- shadowmint 15y agoDon't be silly. Of course I use Facebook. Most people do. I have no time of day for the developers of the spamware that fill it, but that's not the issue here. A plugin that does not in any way use the Facebook api is just a stand alone application. This is exactly what Cory Doctorow is talking about with the war on general purpose computing. A company flailing wilding and applying bad (legal) pressure to bare against the issue of people using their computers to do something the company doesn't like (in this case automating game actions) is the wrong solution.
- mbell 15y agoI don't understand your position at all. In essence it appears to be "if they don't use our API we have no recourse at all, its all fair use". Along the same lines any bot that automates any computer game is "ok", even if it destroys an entire industry of professional gaming, any application that scraps web data is "ok", etc. HN even blocks that kind of use.