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.
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.
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"
Apparently 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.
How 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.
>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.
Of course they can kick any Facebook user/group off for any reason, but I suspect they would have a hard time taking any sort of legal action against a plugin (or tinted glasses) that merely changes the way a user's browser interprets the resources loaded from Facebook.
Anyway, I think it's silly for Facebook to be going after tools that make users like Facebook more, as long as they don't somehow degrade the experience for others (spamming, etc)
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'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?
