6 ms·
"...there's nothing to stop him from continuing work using an alternate account..." Actually, there is. He's been informed by Facebook that they have revoked
by downandout 14y ago
"...there's nothing to stop him from continuing work using an alternate account..."
Actually, there is. He's been informed by Facebook that they have revoked his right to use their site, which is their right. Any update that he issues to to the plugin would be solid evidence that he had been back on Facebook. In a US legal system that regularly bows to the will of large corporations, he could not only be sued, but also charged with a crime under the CFAA (unauthorized access) should he simply open another account.
- drcube 14y agoI don't see why other people can't test his software for him. I'd do it. FB Purity is the only thing keeping me on Facebook, so I have no qualms about risking my account for it. I'm gone as soon as it stops working anyway.
- philip1209 14y agoIf he open sources the project, it would be interesting.
- gamache 14y agoInversion: until he open-sources it, I am not interested in his plight in the slightest.
- ryguytilidie 14y agoseems fair. Refuse to use common sense until someone open sources years of work.
- MartinCron 14y agoIf you're not trying to be civil and respectful, please try. If you are trying, please try harder. Thanks.
- delackner 14y agoHe is being perfectly civil. He has succinctly stated a position that you find unpleasant, but that is all. It is not considered "civil" in the non-software world to suggest that someone should give away their possessions before you care about bad things happening to them.
- MartinCron 14y agoIt was the snark and sarcasm that I was taking issue with. I don't have a strong opinion about the position itself. It's a good point cheapened by coarse delivery. We can do better here.
- gamache 14y agoIf FB Purity is there for the good of humanity, great; open it up and let the community keep going. But why should I care if it's a primarily financial venture, and someone built their house on quicksand? Building a business on FB by removing new FB features is not bright.
- ryguytilidie 14y agoBut hes not building a business on FB, hes building a business on browsers to change the way they display FB. This reach alone makes me feel like you're being a bit unreasonable, and the open source demands kind of confirm it.
- coolj 14y agoI don't use this extension, but I just looked at the xpi and crx versions and they are both just javascript, and I didn't find any license mentioned anywhere. So if you believe djb, you can distribute the source + patches until the author explicitly states otherwise.
- fbpdev 14y agothe source code, clearly has a copyright notice. it is not ok to do what you are suggesting.
- coolj 14y agoTo be clear, I wasn't suggesting anyone do anything. I was noting that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_software is open to various interpretations regarding distribution of patches, etc (djb's interpretation being one example).
- itry 14y agoIm not sure about the law in the USA, but in Germany I would beg to differ. Here, if you run a service, you do NOT have the right to arbitrarily reject users. The bigger your userbase is, the less you have that right. So as long as the developer acts within the law, he could demand access to Facebook.
- downandout 14y agoUS courts have been very liberal in their interpretation of the CFAA. I strongly disagree with it, and I believe it is downright dangerous, but this is the current legal environment in the US. Perhaps he should move to Germany. Stuff like this probably wouldn't happen there either: http://news.yahoo.com/security-experts-blast-ipad-hackers-chilling-conviction-184053636.html http://news.yahoo.com/security-experts-blast-ipad-hackers-ch...
- philhippus 14y agoAh.The dots connect...this gives me a bit of insight into an earlier post on HN about facebook in Germany being forced to allow pseudonyms.
- hack_edu 14y agoIANAL, but in general a business in the US can deny service to anyone as long as they are not in violation of very specific civil rights protections.
- pbhjpbhj 14y agoCan you cite/link the law that specifies a foreign company has to provide a service to a German citizen on demand even if that persons fails to comply with the ToS?
- bjhoops1 14y agoAh, Germany... what a preeminently sensible country. :)
- mhurron 14y ago> in Germany ... if you run a service, you do NOT have the right to arbitrarily reject users [citation needed] No, seriously, I'm having a hard time believing this.
- hnriot 14y agoHaha, this is ridiculous.
- chiquitabacana 14y agoOk, so somebody else can use his extension while he watches. nice. very diferent.
- jasonkolb 14y agoJust open source it.