Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I completely agree that this isn't the right way to fight Meta, but I disagree about "Letting" you build a machine that consumes resources.

It's not OG or Facebook's machine that is consuming Facebook's API Resources. It is software that is running on the User's hardware. The user should be, and generally is, allowed to make any request to Facebook that's not actively malicious - Using whatever software they choose as their user agent. That means a third party client, developed with the express intent of not showing ads. It's my computer, not yours,



That’s an idealistic view. The pragmatic one is to turn the page back a few years to Cambridge Analytica. There is a good quote from Zuck testifying to Congress in this article https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/11/mark-zuck...

> “When we heard back from Cambridge Analytica that they had told us that they weren’t using the data and deleted it, we considered it a closed case. In retrospect, that was clearly a mistake. We shouldn’t have taken their word for it. We’ve updated our policy to make sure we don’t make that mistake again.”

If there is a third-party server in the middle of you and the service, you kind of have to assume that they are doing something with the data.

It is made worse because some developers aren’t doing questionable things. Others are doing questionable things. But you have no way of discerning between the two groups.

So, it has now become against the TOS to have a third-party make requests on your behalf.

Should we believe in the internet’s ability to be unequivocally good, or should we look at history and realize data protection is a serious problem?


> So, it has now become against the TOS to have a third-party make requests on your behalf.

Me installing a third party FB client on my phone and making request through that is not a third party making requests to FB otherwise browsers would then have to be classified as third party. There is no requirement for a third party client to go through a third party server.


I agree with you and disagree with you at the same time.

Here’s the rub though, if you make and distribute a thing, with the sole intent that the thing will be used for stealing something. Is that ok?

If I made a device that could unlock and start a car, that required no knowledge of how the underlying tech worked, and I advertised it as “OGTransportation, transportation like you want it. No car payment, no paying for gas. Just get in and drive”

Not sure I’m feeling the whole argument.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: