3 ms·

This API only grants access to data that the user connecting to it can already access by logging in via the website. You are misreading it.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Isn't that exactly what I said?
- danaris 3y ago
  Going back and rereading your top-level post, it seems like maybe it is? It's possible that the degree of outrage you demonstrated led me to misread that post as saying you thought it would allow anyone access to private information. It's quite clear to me from the wording you pasted there that the rules would only mandate that a logged-in user be able to access through the API all data that they could access by logging into the website. You know, exactly what would be necessary to build a third-party app. In general, I'm struggling to see how that reading of the proposed rules could actually lead to any kind of privacy concerns.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    A simple example of a privacy concern would be if you have a private Facebook account. Any of your friends behind your privacy wall can allow an API to export your data for public publishing or sale by a third party app. I post about an abortion on my private Facebook profile and a friend uses Facebook 2.0 app, Facebook 2.0 can publish that data for anyone to see on the world wide web, or sell it to advertisers, or anti-abortion groups.
    - danaris 3y ago
      And Meta/"Facebook 1.0" can do the same with all your data that they have right now. That's an issue of what the terms of service allow and, potentially, of developer malfeasance. In fact, do you know if there's anything in the bill that would set rules or guidelines for use of the API? Because I think it would be pretty reasonable to require that third parties using the API adhere to certain restrictions, and "don't sell the data you get that way without the user's express, clearly-informed, consent" would be a pretty important one. Furthermore, I think we need regulations limiting what social media services themselves can do with data like that as well. And it may be that it would be more ideal if we didn't open up social media services to third-party clients with mandatory APIs until we do have that. But given the choice between the status quo, and only one of those improvements? I know which one I'd choose.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Meta/Facebook 1.0 can do that now, but at least I agreed to their terms of service and current privacy settings. I agreed meta can use my data. I did not agree that every company can do what they want with it. This bill has no restrictions on the usage of data exported from the API.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Isn't that exactly what I said?

danaris 3y ago
Going back and rereading your top-level post, it seems like maybe it is? It's possible that the degree of outrage you demonstrated led me to misread that post as saying you thought it would allow anyone access to private information. It's quite clear to me from the wording you pasted there that the rules would only mandate that a logged-in user be able to access through the API all data that they could access by logging into the website. You know, exactly what would be necessary to build a third-party app. In general, I'm struggling to see how that reading of the proposed rules could actually lead to any kind of privacy concerns.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  A simple example of a privacy concern would be if you have a private Facebook account. Any of your friends behind your privacy wall can allow an API to export your data for public publishing or sale by a third party app. I post about an abortion on my private Facebook profile and a friend uses Facebook 2.0 app, Facebook 2.0 can publish that data for anyone to see on the world wide web, or sell it to advertisers, or anti-abortion groups.
  - danaris 3y ago
    And Meta/"Facebook 1.0" can do the same with all your data that they have right now. That's an issue of what the terms of service allow and, potentially, of developer malfeasance. In fact, do you know if there's anything in the bill that would set rules or guidelines for use of the API? Because I think it would be pretty reasonable to require that third parties using the API adhere to certain restrictions, and "don't sell the data you get that way without the user's express, clearly-informed, consent" would be a pretty important one. Furthermore, I think we need regulations limiting what social media services themselves can do with data like that as well. And it may be that it would be more ideal if we didn't open up social media services to third-party clients with mandatory APIs until we do have that. But given the choice between the status quo, and only one of those improvements? I know which one I'd choose.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Meta/Facebook 1.0 can do that now, but at least I agreed to their terms of service and current privacy settings. I agreed meta can use my data. I did not agree that every company can do what they want with it. This bill has no restrictions on the usage of data exported from the API.