10 ms·

Facebook deletes Social Fixer page, blocks page admins

111 points by cgtyoder 13y ago

pushkargaikwad 13y ago
"my Page had 338,050 Likes, my Support Group had 13,360 members, and my Interest List had 1.47 Million followers. But all of that work was wiped out in an instant when Facebook decided to shut it down without notice." "Not only did they remove the page, but they also blocked my personal account from posting anything for 12 hours (I can’t even Like anything). They also did the same for anyone who was an Administrator or Moderator of the Page – including my wife’s personal account! Members of the support team, who generously volunteer their time to help users, have been shut out as well. They did one big sweep, I guess." I came here to post this story, it is unfortunate that this news is not getting more visibility. If possible, check "tell facebook what you think" and try to help Matt since he has worked very hard on this app
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  It is against the Facebook TOS, unfortunately shouldn't we be telling him "don't violate Facebook's TOS without expecting repercussions?"
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    The TOS is not above criticism or complaint, and I for one am tired of people being shouted down because they dared take issue with draconian policies.
    - wutbrodo 13y ago
      I tend to have a lot of problems with the way Facebook operates (mostly involving how they treat their users), but they seem pretty reasonable in this case. How is it draconian to not allow a Page on your platform that (among other things) blocks your source of revenue? (social fixer allows blocking Facebook ads)
      - Karunamon 13y ago
        So does Adblock Plus, so does Noscript, so do the content filtering features of major browsers, yet those all have major pages. Blocking the people is just plain dickery on Facebook's part.
        res0nat0r 13y ago
        Not at all. FBpurity is still functioning. I have to download it from a 3rd party site. You can't expect Facebook to allow products which deliberately violate their TOS to be hosted/promoted/advertised on Facebook.
        Karunamon 13y ago
        >You can't expect Facebook to allow products which deliberately violate their TOS to be hosted/promoted/advertised on Facebook. I certainly can (and do) expect humanity and rational thought to take priority over cold application of The Rules Über Alles - and any instances of the latter deserve to be called out for the silliness that they are. Further, it's not like Facebook didn't know about this until now. Social Fixer used to be called Better Facebook until Facebook tapped them on the shoulder and asked them to change the name last year.
        res0nat0r 13y ago
        FB, Google, Amazon etc aren't humanitarian organizations or charity. They are in the business of providing a product, and making money while doing it.
        Karunamon 13y ago
        Which has what to do with the price of tea in china?
        res0nat0r 13y ago
        It has to do with the fact that they have no reason to "play nice for the betterment of humanity" if you don't follow their rules, and every reason to be well within their rights to boot you from their site for what ever reason they choose.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - Karunamon 13y ago
        I appreciate the civility. But please keep in mind what this is. This is not a startup company or a business who was shot down, this was a hobby project by one guy[1]. I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse.. better I suppose since nobody's livelihood was wrecked over it. SF is not a threat to Facebook in any way - this is just plain old dickery hiding behind the rule book as an excuse. [1]: http://socialfixer.com/about.php http://socialfixer.com/about.php
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > I for one am tired of people being shouted down because they dared take issue with draconian policies. You speak of Facebook as though it's a democracy or a public service. Facebook is a business, not a charity, and not a humanitarian enterprise.
      - Karunamon 13y ago
        You open to the public, you open yourself up to public criticism. The way the business is run is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, this sucks, and complaining (loudly) is the way to get it fixed.
        lutusp 13y ago
        > You open to the public, you open yourself up to public criticism. Yes, but not public control or public voting on policies. > The fact of the matter is, this sucks, and complaining (loudly) is the way to get it fixed. You think businesses deserve to be controlled by the loudest voice among its detractors? If that were true, Tesla would be out of business -- it has many quiet fans, and a few loud detractors.
agilord 13y ago
From the FAQ: "Can Social Fixer hide the Sponsored ads? Yes, just click on the "X" in the upper right of the box, and all boxes with the same title will be hidden every time you load a page." There is a lesson here somewhere...
- alyandon 13y ago
  Does that mean https://www.facebook.com/adblockplus https://www.facebook.com/adblockplus is next?
  - sp332 13y ago
    AdBlock Plus doesn't block Facebook ads for me. Am I using it wrong?
    - twigger 13y ago
      By default, Adblock Plus "Allow[s] some non-intrusive advertising." You have to go into the settings and opt out to stop all ads.
    - aw3c2 13y ago
      You might consider switching to the fork Adblock Edge. Adblock Plus has some shady background and nowadays allows tracking and selected advertisers.
- joeblau 13y ago
  That right there seems like reason enough for $FB to remove the application.
electic 13y ago
It is also against Facebook TOS to create or use browser extensions to alter the Facebook experience. This has been the rule for many years. The fact that this page and extension did not get banned sooner is the real story.
- Nimi 13y ago
  Very well, maybe they're trying to kill Social Fixer because of their TOS. Right now, it seems like this will be the biggest exposure SF gets in its several years of existence, so not the best possible move... Advertisers didn't kill adblock, and they won't kill this. How much revenue and resources they lose before they accept this fact and adapt, is up to them.
  - WalterSear 13y ago
    Except this isn't a Facebook app - it's a browser extension - and so the Facebook api TOS doesn't apply.
    - joe_the_user 13y ago
      Sadly, I think they do. That is, Facebook's terms include browsing Facebook with an accepted browser. That's nuts but it's also natural. Facebook basically would like to pretend the browser is something like a "trusted client" rather than an inherent unknown. It's a thing that you do pretending it's for security but, of course, it doesn't work for security but does work reasonably well for the masses aiming to view their own data in the way they like it. Facebook stands by banning Robert Scoble for downloading the emails of his friend from his account using a script. The difference between a "browser" and "script" is completely arbitrary in the world of bits and bytes but banning "upsupported browsers"
- alextingle 13y ago
  They can write that in their terms & conditions all they like, but it doesn't make it legal or enforceable.
victorf 13y ago
I hope one day we can stop relying on rent-seeking third-party platforms for important interactions.
namenotrequired 13y ago
Beware: Your Business Is At The Mercy Of Facebook! ...if you allow yourself to rely entirely on them.
- misterbwong 13y ago
  ...and violate their TOS at the same time.
  - mildtrepidation 13y ago
    Well, whether you do or not, if it's the sole platform you build on, you're at their mercy. Violating the TOS means you should expect to get burned (and you've done it to yourself). Either they utterly failed at any kind of due diligence while designing this product or they're lying about not understanding Facebook's actions; neither really engenders sympathy. I'm not a fan of FB, but this clearly is not some arbitrary evilness on their end.
    - mattkruse 13y ago
      I did not violate their TOS. This is not a Facebook App that uses their API, therefore I am not bound by their developer TOS.
      - if_by_whisky 13y ago
        You are bound by their whims, however. I feel for you-- it's unfortunate to have something you put your heart and soul into shut down without notice. This is why I would hesitate before developing a facebook or iOS app. Being subject to the whims of some tech bureaucrat's interpretation is a little too discomforting.
        mattkruse 13y ago
        Agree 100%. People have asked for a mobile version of this app, and one of the big reasons I won't do it (or build any mobile app) is because I refuse to invest a lot of time and effort into something that can only be distributed through a 3rd-party channel, with their blessing. I will not take the risk that Apple will not suddenly decide they don't like my app tomorrow. No way.
rexreed 13y ago
This is why I'm so scared / hesitant to build something that depends entirely or mostly on a third party company for its success or even ability to exist. Businesses that depend on Facebook or Twitter or Apple's App Store or even Meetup are scary. I have businesses that depend on one or more of these. And I'm scared. I'm doing my best to extricate myself from this dependency and build substantial visibility elsewhere where I can.
marchra 13y ago
Fred Wilson "Be Your Own Bitch", film at 11.
jfarmer 13y ago
This has been Facebook's MO for almost 5 years now. What Social Fixer was doing in particular is among a class of applications that Facebook has always deleted or banned as soon as they noticed them. I've had applications with 5-10MM MAU deleted without warning and know dozens of folks with similar stories. That's life developing for Facebook. Don't be under any illusions if you decide to play in their sandbox.
nlh 13y ago
One of the most important lessons I've learned during the growing-up phase of my being an entrepreneur -- and one of the first things I'm doing with my next startup -- is putting together a list of "doomsday scenarios" right off the bat. What are the _single_ actions / events / scenarios that could kill your business overnight? I emphasize single because every business is going to have the potential for a series of unforeseen events kill them (i.e. Microsoft would probably not have seen 'Apple releases a phone' as a business/Balmer-killer), but every business should be keenly aware of the single-points-of-failure (SPoF). It seems obvious, but so many folks either willfully ignore or choose to pretend that SPoF don't exist or rationalize the scenario away. Examples: * You run on AWS in a single availability zone, and that availability zone goes down for a week ("The cloud is super reliable. Amazon won't go down.") * Your CTO is the only person on the company who knows the product, and he quits overnight / gets injured / becomes incapacitated. ("He's my partner. He'd never abandon the business. We're in this together.") * You rely solely on Facebook / Twitter / Apple App Store and are at the mercy of their changes in policy ("Oh Facebook would never just shut us down.") * You're built solely on the Foursquare Places API. ("Foursquare won't just kill all the companies that rely on their API...right?") Etc. etc. etc. Now, this isn't saying that you should be paralyzed by the potential for SPoFs to hurt your business -- it may make sense to proceed even with them around (i.e. lots of people have made a lot of money building FB apps). But you MUST be aware of what they are, and you MUST have a plan in place to handle the continuation of the business if one of them comes true.
- mattkruse 13y ago
  Agreed. But also note - this isn't a point of failure. It's an annoyance, and it's Facebook being arbitrary and inconsistent. But it doesn't affect my ability to deliver the product. It just makes it a little harder, because the most logical communication medium between myself and my users has been taken away.
  - jfarmer 13y ago
    Of all the companies out there, Facebook is the least arbitrary and inconsistent I know! Just imagine they're a perfectly rational, self-interested actor who plays realpolitik all the time and plan accordingly. For example, how does FB benefit from your product? Does it hamper them in any way? Even the name (Social "Fixer") does not align with FB's interests. The rational thing to do would be to shut you down. If you had leverage or tied into a broader strategy they might not. But you don't, so they did.
EGreg 13y ago
This is why I wrote this: http://qbix.com/blog http://qbix.com/blog Don't rely on one platform.
loceng 13y ago
Facebook trying to align "Community Standards" with their business protectionism and perhaps even be trying to disguise it as a positive thing they're trying to enforce - it's a bit sickening.
mathattack 13y ago
"My software is a free browser extension that fixes and enhances the Facebook user interface" I can certainly see why Facebook might not want someone else controlling their user experience. It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch that they would kill this.
iblaine 13y ago
Bummer, during election season Social Fixer made facebook usable by blocking any comment with the strings 'republican/democratic/romney/obama.' I am going to miss having the ability to filter crap from my news feed.
- WalterSear 13y ago
  It's not gone - just being bullied.
j45 13y ago
I wonder if Facebook will come out with these features soon
freshhawk 13y ago
sigh, all these "hackers" confused about the difference between a facebook app and a browser extension, confused about the difference between the app and the facebook page about the app ... These comments are depressing as hell. On topic: I'd just be happy you lasted this long with a facebook page for an extension that does this kind of thing. This gets you an extra bump in publicity and now you don't have the threat of this hanging over your head anymore. Is there anything that your users want that would really piss Facebook off that you can do now but were wary of doing before because of not wanting to push them too far? Aggressive ad filtering?

111 points by cgtyoder 13y ago

"my Page had 338,050 Likes, my Support Group had 13,360 members, and my Interest List had 1.47 Million followers. But all of that work was wiped out in an instant when Facebook decided to shut it down without notice." "Not only did they remove the page, but they also blocked my personal account from posting anything for 12 hours (I can’t even Like anything). They also did the same for anyone who was an Administrator or Moderator of the Page – including my wife’s personal account! Members of the support team, who generously volunteer their time to help users, have been shut out as well. They did one big sweep, I guess." I came here to post this story, it is unfortunate that this news is not getting more visibility. If possible, check "tell facebook what you think" and try to help Matt since he has worked very hard on this app

res0nat0r 13y ago
It is against the Facebook TOS, unfortunately shouldn't we be telling him "don't violate Facebook's TOS without expecting repercussions?"
- Karunamon 13y ago
  The TOS is not above criticism or complaint, and I for one am tired of people being shouted down because they dared take issue with draconian policies.
  - wutbrodo 13y ago
    I tend to have a lot of problems with the way Facebook operates (mostly involving how they treat their users), but they seem pretty reasonable in this case. How is it draconian to not allow a Page on your platform that (among other things) blocks your source of revenue? (social fixer allows blocking Facebook ads)
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      So does Adblock Plus, so does Noscript, so do the content filtering features of major browsers, yet those all have major pages. Blocking the people is just plain dickery on Facebook's part.
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
        Not at all. FBpurity is still functioning. I have to download it from a 3rd party site. You can't expect Facebook to allow products which deliberately violate their TOS to be hosted/promoted/advertised on Facebook.
        Karunamon 13y ago
        >You can't expect Facebook to allow products which deliberately violate their TOS to be hosted/promoted/advertised on Facebook. I certainly can (and do) expect humanity and rational thought to take priority over cold application of The Rules Über Alles - and any instances of the latter deserve to be called out for the silliness that they are. Further, it's not like Facebook didn't know about this until now. Social Fixer used to be called Better Facebook until Facebook tapped them on the shoulder and asked them to change the name last year.
        res0nat0r 13y ago
        FB, Google, Amazon etc aren't humanitarian organizations or charity. They are in the business of providing a product, and making money while doing it.
        Karunamon 13y ago
        Which has what to do with the price of tea in china?
        res0nat0r 13y ago
        It has to do with the fact that they have no reason to "play nice for the betterment of humanity" if you don't follow their rules, and every reason to be well within their rights to boot you from their site for what ever reason they choose.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      I appreciate the civility. But please keep in mind what this is. This is not a startup company or a business who was shot down, this was a hobby project by one guy[1]. I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse.. better I suppose since nobody's livelihood was wrecked over it. SF is not a threat to Facebook in any way - this is just plain old dickery hiding behind the rule book as an excuse. [1]: http://socialfixer.com/about.php http://socialfixer.com/about.php
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > I for one am tired of people being shouted down because they dared take issue with draconian policies. You speak of Facebook as though it's a democracy or a public service. Facebook is a business, not a charity, and not a humanitarian enterprise.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      You open to the public, you open yourself up to public criticism. The way the business is run is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, this sucks, and complaining (loudly) is the way to get it fixed.
      - lutusp 13y ago
        > You open to the public, you open yourself up to public criticism. Yes, but not public control or public voting on policies. > The fact of the matter is, this sucks, and complaining (loudly) is the way to get it fixed. You think businesses deserve to be controlled by the loudest voice among its detractors? If that were true, Tesla would be out of business -- it has many quiet fans, and a few loud detractors.

agilord 13y ago

From the FAQ: "Can Social Fixer hide the Sponsored ads? Yes, just click on the "X" in the upper right of the box, and all boxes with the same title will be hidden every time you load a page." There is a lesson here somewhere...

alyandon 13y ago
Does that mean https://www.facebook.com/adblockplus https://www.facebook.com/adblockplus is next?
- sp332 13y ago
  AdBlock Plus doesn't block Facebook ads for me. Am I using it wrong?
  - twigger 13y ago
    By default, Adblock Plus "Allow[s] some non-intrusive advertising." You have to go into the settings and opt out to stop all ads.
  - aw3c2 13y ago
    You might consider switching to the fork Adblock Edge. Adblock Plus has some shady background and nowadays allows tracking and selected advertisers.
joeblau 13y ago
That right there seems like reason enough for $FB to remove the application.

electic 13y ago

It is also against Facebook TOS to create or use browser extensions to alter the Facebook experience. This has been the rule for many years. The fact that this page and extension did not get banned sooner is the real story.

Nimi 13y ago
Very well, maybe they're trying to kill Social Fixer because of their TOS. Right now, it seems like this will be the biggest exposure SF gets in its several years of existence, so not the best possible move... Advertisers didn't kill adblock, and they won't kill this. How much revenue and resources they lose before they accept this fact and adapt, is up to them.
- WalterSear 13y ago
  Except this isn't a Facebook app - it's a browser extension - and so the Facebook api TOS doesn't apply.
  - joe_the_user 13y ago
    Sadly, I think they do. That is, Facebook's terms include browsing Facebook with an accepted browser. That's nuts but it's also natural. Facebook basically would like to pretend the browser is something like a "trusted client" rather than an inherent unknown. It's a thing that you do pretending it's for security but, of course, it doesn't work for security but does work reasonably well for the masses aiming to view their own data in the way they like it. Facebook stands by banning Robert Scoble for downloading the emails of his friend from his account using a script. The difference between a "browser" and "script" is completely arbitrary in the world of bits and bytes but banning "upsupported browsers"
alextingle 13y ago
They can write that in their terms & conditions all they like, but it doesn't make it legal or enforceable.

victorf 13y ago

I hope one day we can stop relying on rent-seeking third-party platforms for important interactions.

namenotrequired 13y ago

Beware: Your Business Is At The Mercy Of Facebook! ...if you allow yourself to rely entirely on them.

misterbwong 13y ago
...and violate their TOS at the same time.
- mildtrepidation 13y ago
  Well, whether you do or not, if it's the sole platform you build on, you're at their mercy. Violating the TOS means you should expect to get burned (and you've done it to yourself). Either they utterly failed at any kind of due diligence while designing this product or they're lying about not understanding Facebook's actions; neither really engenders sympathy. I'm not a fan of FB, but this clearly is not some arbitrary evilness on their end.
  - mattkruse 13y ago
    I did not violate their TOS. This is not a Facebook App that uses their API, therefore I am not bound by their developer TOS.
    - if_by_whisky 13y ago
      You are bound by their whims, however. I feel for you-- it's unfortunate to have something you put your heart and soul into shut down without notice. This is why I would hesitate before developing a facebook or iOS app. Being subject to the whims of some tech bureaucrat's interpretation is a little too discomforting.
      - mattkruse 13y ago
        Agree 100%. People have asked for a mobile version of this app, and one of the big reasons I won't do it (or build any mobile app) is because I refuse to invest a lot of time and effort into something that can only be distributed through a 3rd-party channel, with their blessing. I will not take the risk that Apple will not suddenly decide they don't like my app tomorrow. No way.

rexreed 13y ago

This is why I'm so scared / hesitant to build something that depends entirely or mostly on a third party company for its success or even ability to exist. Businesses that depend on Facebook or Twitter or Apple's App Store or even Meetup are scary. I have businesses that depend on one or more of these. And I'm scared. I'm doing my best to extricate myself from this dependency and build substantial visibility elsewhere where I can.

marchra 13y ago

Fred Wilson "Be Your Own Bitch", film at 11.

jfarmer 13y ago

This has been Facebook's MO for almost 5 years now. What Social Fixer was doing in particular is among a class of applications that Facebook has always deleted or banned as soon as they noticed them. I've had applications with 5-10MM MAU deleted without warning and know dozens of folks with similar stories. That's life developing for Facebook. Don't be under any illusions if you decide to play in their sandbox.

nlh 13y ago

One of the most important lessons I've learned during the growing-up phase of my being an entrepreneur -- and one of the first things I'm doing with my next startup -- is putting together a list of "doomsday scenarios" right off the bat. What are the _single_ actions / events / scenarios that could kill your business overnight? I emphasize single because every business is going to have the potential for a series of unforeseen events kill them (i.e. Microsoft would probably not have seen 'Apple releases a phone' as a business/Balmer-killer), but every business should be keenly aware of the single-points-of-failure (SPoF). It seems obvious, but so many folks either willfully ignore or choose to pretend that SPoF don't exist or rationalize the scenario away. Examples: * You run on AWS in a single availability zone, and that availability zone goes down for a week ("The cloud is super reliable. Amazon won't go down.") * Your CTO is the only person on the company who knows the product, and he quits overnight / gets injured / becomes incapacitated. ("He's my partner. He'd never abandon the business. We're in this together.") * You rely solely on Facebook / Twitter / Apple App Store and are at the mercy of their changes in policy ("Oh Facebook would never just shut us down.") * You're built solely on the Foursquare Places API. ("Foursquare won't just kill all the companies that rely on their API...right?") Etc. etc. etc. Now, this isn't saying that you should be paralyzed by the potential for SPoFs to hurt your business -- it may make sense to proceed even with them around (i.e. lots of people have made a lot of money building FB apps). But you MUST be aware of what they are, and you MUST have a plan in place to handle the continuation of the business if one of them comes true.

mattkruse 13y ago
Agreed. But also note - this isn't a point of failure. It's an annoyance, and it's Facebook being arbitrary and inconsistent. But it doesn't affect my ability to deliver the product. It just makes it a little harder, because the most logical communication medium between myself and my users has been taken away.
- jfarmer 13y ago
  Of all the companies out there, Facebook is the least arbitrary and inconsistent I know! Just imagine they're a perfectly rational, self-interested actor who plays realpolitik all the time and plan accordingly. For example, how does FB benefit from your product? Does it hamper them in any way? Even the name (Social "Fixer") does not align with FB's interests. The rational thing to do would be to shut you down. If you had leverage or tied into a broader strategy they might not. But you don't, so they did.

EGreg 13y ago

This is why I wrote this: http://qbix.com/blog http://qbix.com/blog Don't rely on one platform.

loceng 13y ago

Facebook trying to align "Community Standards" with their business protectionism and perhaps even be trying to disguise it as a positive thing they're trying to enforce - it's a bit sickening.

mathattack 13y ago

"My software is a free browser extension that fixes and enhances the Facebook user interface" I can certainly see why Facebook might not want someone else controlling their user experience. It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch that they would kill this.

iblaine 13y ago

Bummer, during election season Social Fixer made facebook usable by blocking any comment with the strings 'republican/democratic/romney/obama.' I am going to miss having the ability to filter crap from my news feed.

WalterSear 13y ago
It's not gone - just being bullied.

j45 13y ago

I wonder if Facebook will come out with these features soon

freshhawk 13y ago

sigh, all these "hackers" confused about the difference between a facebook app and a browser extension, confused about the difference between the app and the facebook page about the app ... These comments are depressing as hell. On topic: I'd just be happy you lasted this long with a facebook page for an extension that does this kind of thing. This gets you an extra bump in publicity and now you don't have the threat of this hanging over your head anymore. Is there anything that your users want that would really piss Facebook off that you can do now but were wary of doing before because of not wanting to push them too far? Aggressive ad filtering?