7 ms·
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
by 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 agoVery 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 agoExcept this isn't a Facebook app - it's a browser extension - and so the Facebook api TOS doesn't apply.
- joe_the_user 13y agoSadly, 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 agoThey can write that in their terms & conditions all they like, but it doesn't make it legal or enforceable.
- nicholassmith 13y agoApparently it does make it enforceable as they removed his page. Unfortunately when you're on someones platform you're at their mercy, they can delete your page for some minor infraction and you've got very little recourse.
- tlrobinson 13y agoI suspect they removed his page because they can't take action directly against him.
- sudomal 13y agoIf you use their website, especially if you build something on it, then you need to live by their rules.
- alextingle 13y agoReally? Tell that to AdBlock.
- wutbrodo 13y agoHow would it be illegal to remove pages from their own platform that alter Facebook's appearance? As far as enforceability, that seems demonstrably false based on this post.
- alextingle 13y agoUm, I never said that anybody did anything illegal. In fact, that was the central point of my comment. SF-guy can write his app, I can use it, and FB can delete his FB pages. No laws broken.
- wutbrodo 13y ago>They can write that in their terms & conditions all they like, but it doesn't make it legal or enforceable That was In response to "It is against Facebook tos to create or use extensions that alter the experience". When you say "that doesn't make it legal", does that not imply you think something is illegal....? Regardless, I see from your comment that you weren't talking about the page removal, but rather going on a tangent about the legality / enforceability of the ban on creating and using extensions that alter Facebook (as opposed to banning pages n Facebook that promote these extensions). We're on total agreement on that.
- loceng 13y agoThis behaviour certainly fits with Facebook's controlled-ecosystem and behaviours associated with maintaining that..
- tlrobinson 13y agoAm I forbidden from wearing tinted glasses while looking at Facebook as well? After all, they "alter the experience".
- reflectiv 13y agoI understand your point, however that isn't quite a valid analogy in this case. The correct analogy would be: Q) Am I forbidden from writing an application using the facebook API that tints/alters the color of the website? A) Yes, you are forbidden from doing that.
- scottcanoni 13y agoThis did not use the Facebook API. It completely circumvents it.
- mattkruse 13y agoYes. What they said. Social Fixer is not bound by any API TOS, because I do not use their API or any official mechanism they offer. I am not a Facebook Developer, and this isn't a Facebook App. This is, of course, intentional, because I don't want to be bound by the Developer TOS.
- reflectiv 13y agoMy apologies, I did not know it was completely separate. I had assumed it wasn't separate because that is what is listed as the reason for removing it. This is quite unfair to you IMO...downright shameful of facebook to do this.
- res0nat0r 13y agoUnfortunately altering the FB experience, api or not is against their TOS.
- Gormo 13y ago
- captainmuon 13y agoFacebook shouldn't be allowed to ban that. Facebook is so big, it has become infrastructure. That it is not regulated yet is the real scandal.
- 3825 13y agoAt what point does regulation kick in? Is it the same thing as the fuzzy "I don't know how to define it but I know it when I see it"? Why isn't Comcast regulated like a utility? It definitely ought to be if we regulate Facebook.
- baq 13y ago> Why isn't Comcast regulated like a utility? good question.
- chris_wot 13y agoI've always wondered how effective Facebook is at enforcing its policies. I've seen plenty of pages that I know are gaming likes, and while I report them nothing ever seems to be done. Are Facebook really serious about stopping abuses of their system?