4 ms·

This isn't a Facebook app. This isn't using Facebook API. It's effectively as if he had written a custom browser that displays the Facebook page in a way he lik

by yason 13y ago

This isn't a Facebook app. This isn't using Facebook API. It's effectively as if he had written a custom browser that displays the Facebook page in a way he likes: a script like that is basically a functional rather than visual stylesheet. Facebook only gets to push some HTML, CSS, and JS to its customers. If I understood that correctly then Facebook has absolutely no say about that piece of software. Because if they had, they could also tell us not to distribute a browser that displays Facebook "badly". Or an operating system that does that. Or blueprints for hardware that does that. They could forbid using such a software in the account terms for each individual user but that would be highly unenforceable (as in as soon as the data gets to my computer, I can and will mangle the bits whichever way I happen to like). What Facebook can do is to terminate the author's Facebook account: I assume he might have broken some legal terms regarding his own account. However, writing and distributing a piece of software is absolutely out of their limits. It's sad and disappointing to see Facebook use the legal card, a multibillion company threatening a one-man party with costly lawsuits.

deong 13y ago
Presumably they can terminate his account for any reason they like. There's no legal right to a Facebook account, so they don't have to hunt for any terms he might have violated. But yes, I don't see how they could expect to win in court if they decided to go further than that, but in losing they could ruin his life.
JacobJans 13y ago
> Facebook only gets to push some HTML, CSS, and JS to its customers. This is completely false. Facebook is a business. That means they have the legal right to do a lot more than transmit data. This is such a basic, obvious, fact that I find it difficult that so many people seem to not understand it. Facebook is not a data transmission service. They're a business. They have a product that they offer. If you want to use that product, they ask that you agree to a set of rules. This is very, very, normal. It is the foundation of society: The ability to make agreements. Whether or not this software violates the agreement Facebook asks of its users is another question. But, they absolutely DO have the right to do more than "push some HTML, CSS, and JS to its customers."
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  The agreement applies to the users, not to the person coding the browser. The fact that he happens to have a personal page is unrelated, and facebook would probably threaten legal action even if he didn't have one. On top of that, there is a reason contracts of adhesion are treated specially. An agreement between a billion dollar corporation and someone that wants to post cat photos isn't a true meeting of the minds. It can only make demands that are sufficiently ordinary* Requiring a website to be browsed in a specific way is rather out of the ordinary. * As defined by libraryfulls of precedent.
- troymc 13y ago
  The fundamental problem is that Facebook's "agreement" seeks to undermine a core aspect of the web, which is that everything --- everything --- sent across the wire is to be interpreted as a suggestion (not a requirement). The recipient is free to enlarge the font if they have poor vision, they're free to pass the content it through a text-to-speech engine if they're blind, they're free to strip out all the Q's and J's, they're free to turn down the volume on videos, etc. Facebook can try to impose their will, but all they'll end up doing is looking like a bunch of empathy-deficient, user-deaf nincompoops.
- yason 13y ago
  By the same token car makers should have the legal right to dictate which roads you can drive on, hardware makers should have the legal right to dictate what operating system you can run on the hardware you bought yourself, and I think at this point I pretty much should have the legal right to dictate how others must interpret what I write here. Or perhaps not?
keeperofdakeys 13y ago
There aren't really any legal threats here, just a simple "We'll disable your account if this software continues to have these features." He is under no obligation to remove them, unless he wants to continue using the services Facebook provides.

by yason 13y ago

deong 13y ago

Presumably they can terminate his account for any reason they like. There's no legal right to a Facebook account, so they don't have to hunt for any terms he might have violated. But yes, I don't see how they could expect to win in court if they decided to go further than that, but in losing they could ruin his life.

JacobJans 13y ago

> Facebook only gets to push some HTML, CSS, and JS to its customers. This is completely false. Facebook is a business. That means they have the legal right to do a lot more than transmit data. This is such a basic, obvious, fact that I find it difficult that so many people seem to not understand it. Facebook is not a data transmission service. They're a business. They have a product that they offer. If you want to use that product, they ask that you agree to a set of rules. This is very, very, normal. It is the foundation of society: The ability to make agreements. Whether or not this software violates the agreement Facebook asks of its users is another question. But, they absolutely DO have the right to do more than "push some HTML, CSS, and JS to its customers."

Dylan16807 13y ago
The agreement applies to the users, not to the person coding the browser. The fact that he happens to have a personal page is unrelated, and facebook would probably threaten legal action even if he didn't have one. On top of that, there is a reason contracts of adhesion are treated specially. An agreement between a billion dollar corporation and someone that wants to post cat photos isn't a true meeting of the minds. It can only make demands that are sufficiently ordinary* Requiring a website to be browsed in a specific way is rather out of the ordinary. * As defined by libraryfulls of precedent.
troymc 13y ago
The fundamental problem is that Facebook's "agreement" seeks to undermine a core aspect of the web, which is that everything --- everything --- sent across the wire is to be interpreted as a suggestion (not a requirement). The recipient is free to enlarge the font if they have poor vision, they're free to pass the content it through a text-to-speech engine if they're blind, they're free to strip out all the Q's and J's, they're free to turn down the volume on videos, etc. Facebook can try to impose their will, but all they'll end up doing is looking like a bunch of empathy-deficient, user-deaf nincompoops.
yason 13y ago
By the same token car makers should have the legal right to dictate which roads you can drive on, hardware makers should have the legal right to dictate what operating system you can run on the hardware you bought yourself, and I think at this point I pretty much should have the legal right to dictate how others must interpret what I write here. Or perhaps not?

keeperofdakeys 13y ago

There aren't really any legal threats here, just a simple "We'll disable your account if this software continues to have these features." He is under no obligation to remove them, unless he wants to continue using the services Facebook provides.