3 ms·

That...doesn't say what you are claiming it says. Clause 2 requires the API to allow access to a user's data by that user or someone they authorize. Sure, ther

That...doesn't say what you are claiming it says. Clause 2 requires the API to allow access to a user's data by that user or someone they authorize. Sure, there's a reasonable concern about coerced authorization by third parties, but that's a separate problem, and not worse than what we have now. Clause 3 isn't quite as explicitly narrow, but it still specifies being able to access the listed data on behalf of a current user. Neither of these are saying "anyone can access all the data." They're saying "anyone can access their own data". > this would also require the social media company to update their database at the request of the API user. And this is pretty obviously required in order for the API to allow third party apps that are more than read-only. "Updating their database" is necessary to make posts, react to posts, or change your profile information.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I think between the two sections, the API can access any information that the user could. This means all public information, their own private information, and the private information of others that has been shared with them. I think the two of us agree on what the law says, I just happened to think it's ridiculous. It would require every large social media company to actively support competitors that are cloning their website, require them to manage the database for those competitors, and do it at no cost. I coul make a Facebook 2.0 app that shows users everything that they could see in Facebook, but strips out the Facebook ads and puts in my own. Facebook would be required to manage the data of my users at no cost. My app could even submit advertising posts on behalf of my users to Facebook, which it would have to write
- danaris 3y ago
  > It would require every large social media company to actively support competitors that are cloning their website, require them to manage the database for those competitors, and do it at no cost. Well...yes. That seems like the point, to me. Having data siloed by massive megacorporations who abuse that data to generate ludicrous levels of quarterly profit does not benefit us as a society. I do not believe that any particular business model deserves a guarantee that it be allowed to continue in perpetuity. What this would do is force social media services to compete on features and user-friendliness, rather than just network effects, dopamine farming, and lock-in. It would lower the barriers to entry for competitors in the social media market, and lower the barriers to exit for social media users who want to move from one network to another.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Yes, that seems like the point to me too. I just happen to think it is unreasonable and rediculous. I agree that business dont have any garuentee to continue, or even without restriction. I dont think that compelled action is appropriate. I think there would be a better legal and moral basis for banning social media outright, than requing them to provide API service to competitiors.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I think between the two sections, the API can access any information that the user could. This means all public information, their own private information, and the private information of others that has been shared with them. I think the two of us agree on what the law says, I just happened to think it's ridiculous. It would require every large social media company to actively support competitors that are cloning their website, require them to manage the database for those competitors, and do it at no cost. I coul make a Facebook 2.0 app that shows users everything that they could see in Facebook, but strips out the Facebook ads and puts in my own. Facebook would be required to manage the data of my users at no cost. My app could even submit advertising posts on behalf of my users to Facebook, which it would have to write

danaris 3y ago
> It would require every large social media company to actively support competitors that are cloning their website, require them to manage the database for those competitors, and do it at no cost. Well...yes. That seems like the point, to me. Having data siloed by massive megacorporations who abuse that data to generate ludicrous levels of quarterly profit does not benefit us as a society. I do not believe that any particular business model deserves a guarantee that it be allowed to continue in perpetuity. What this would do is force social media services to compete on features and user-friendliness, rather than just network effects, dopamine farming, and lock-in. It would lower the barriers to entry for competitors in the social media market, and lower the barriers to exit for social media users who want to move from one network to another.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Yes, that seems like the point to me too. I just happen to think it is unreasonable and rediculous. I agree that business dont have any garuentee to continue, or even without restriction. I dont think that compelled action is appropriate. I think there would be a better legal and moral basis for banning social media outright, than requing them to provide API service to competitiors.