3 ms·

I'm glad they are putting this verification process in place, and I think it is fair that some of the cost of this process is borne by the developers. I'm not s

I'm glad they are putting this verification process in place, and I think it is fair that some of the cost of this process is borne by the developers. I'm not sure whether $375 is fair in that respect - I'd have to see the math. But what I find disturbing (and inflammatory) about this post is the accusation of 'protection racket'. By Arrington's logic, the following would also be protection rackets: 1. The driving license assessment fee, for operating a motor vehicle on public roads. 2. Assessment fees and membership fees paid by professional coaches (e.g. to make sure your ski instructor is up to standard) 3. The requirement that porn stars have regular STD test to minimize infection. These are paid for out-of-pocket by the actor. I am glad that we have all the above three, and am happy to see Facebook App verification added as a fourth. It is however important to ensure that the cost is reasonable. Perhaps Facebook could allow developers the option of having their app verified by a 3rd party? That way market forces would make the pricing 'fair'.

anamax 18y ago
> 3. The requirement that porn stars have regular STD test to minimize infection. These are paid for out-of-pocket by the actor. Is that a law or is it just the way that reputable porn companies operate? If the latter (which I think is how it actually is), you're free to skip the STD tests - you just have to find folks willing to do the same. "do it my way or do it with someone else" is not a protection racket. I'm pretty sure that there's no law requiring "assessment fees and membership fees" for professional coaches either.
- plinkplonk 18y ago
  "> 3. The requirement that porn stars have regular STD test to minimize infection. These are paid for out-of-pocket by the actor. Is that a law or is it just the way that reputable porn companies operate? " "reputable porn companies" :-)
- tomsaffell 18y ago
  > "do it my way or do it with someone else" is not a protection racket. I totally agree. Perhaps my post was ambiguous as this is exactly what I was trying to say. My comment was not about the law it was about rules set by private institutions - Facebook are not making any laws. I do not know whether (2) and (3) are required by law, but it is irrelevant to the point I was making, which is: Arrington's definition of 'protection racket' would clasify lots of rules that we consider beneficial to society as 'protection rackets', therefore his accusation is unfair. You're quite right in saying that "..you just have to find folks willing to do the same..", this applies to (2) (3) and Facebook. I.e. the analogy holds: Just as a porn-star can look for work where STD tests are not required#, developers can choose to not develop for Facebook (or be unverified). If the market of non-STD-requiring-studios / webapps-outside-facebook proves too small to be viable for them then they have to get-the-test/ get-the-app-verified. It's no different. It seems to be that in both these cases the person would be best served by paying the cash to get verified, but it is a free world, so they can choose to do whatever they think best for them. (# - even if it is the law, they can always go outside the US) > I'm pretty sure that there's no law requiring "assessment fees and membership fees" for professional coaches either. There is no law that I am aware of. But the professional bodies of which I am a part all have rules that do involve the payment of fees for accreditation, and I'm glad they do.

anamax 18y ago

> 3. The requirement that porn stars have regular STD test to minimize infection. These are paid for out-of-pocket by the actor. Is that a law or is it just the way that reputable porn companies operate? If the latter (which I think is how it actually is), you're free to skip the STD tests - you just have to find folks willing to do the same. "do it my way or do it with someone else" is not a protection racket. I'm pretty sure that there's no law requiring "assessment fees and membership fees" for professional coaches either.

plinkplonk 18y ago
"> 3. The requirement that porn stars have regular STD test to minimize infection. These are paid for out-of-pocket by the actor. Is that a law or is it just the way that reputable porn companies operate? " "reputable porn companies" :-)
tomsaffell 18y ago
> "do it my way or do it with someone else" is not a protection racket. I totally agree. Perhaps my post was ambiguous as this is exactly what I was trying to say. My comment was not about the law it was about rules set by private institutions - Facebook are not making any laws. I do not know whether (2) and (3) are required by law, but it is irrelevant to the point I was making, which is: Arrington's definition of 'protection racket' would clasify lots of rules that we consider beneficial to society as 'protection rackets', therefore his accusation is unfair. You're quite right in saying that "..you just have to find folks willing to do the same..", this applies to (2) (3) and Facebook. I.e. the analogy holds: Just as a porn-star can look for work where STD tests are not required#, developers can choose to not develop for Facebook (or be unverified). If the market of non-STD-requiring-studios / webapps-outside-facebook proves too small to be viable for them then they have to get-the-test/ get-the-app-verified. It's no different. It seems to be that in both these cases the person would be best served by paying the cash to get verified, but it is a free world, so they can choose to do whatever they think best for them. (# - even if it is the law, they can always go outside the US) > I'm pretty sure that there's no law requiring "assessment fees and membership fees" for professional coaches either. There is no law that I am aware of. But the professional bodies of which I am a part all have rules that do involve the payment of fees for accreditation, and I'm glad they do.