Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by reflectiv | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

reflectiv

I 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.

View on HN

This did not use the Facebook API. It completely circumvents it.

Yes. 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.

Unfortunately altering the FB experience, api or not is against their TOS.

If you're referring to point 3.11, then I don't agree. This is not the intent of this provision. This is clearly targeted at malware or other software that prevents the proper working of Facebook against the user's wishes. Otherwise, it would be a violation of their TOS to disable Javascript, change your font, or use custom CSS in your browser.

> This is clearly targeted at malware or other software that prevents the proper working of Facebook against the user's wishes.

Facebook could be defining anything that blocks or interferes with their advertising and revenue stream as malware.

He's explaining that he never accepted their TOS in the first place, because he never did anything that required him to.

It's pretty hard to develop an app that modifies the way a site is displayed to logged in users without being logged in to the site yourself...

Not true. I've created a browser extension that inserted a menu item to Facebook's menu for each facebook story. I didn't have to be signed in as a facebook developer to do that.

http://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/upside-down-ternet.html

Now, develop and debug it without being able to use HTTP or test it with live data in any way.

My 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com