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.

Except this isn't a Facebook app - it's a browser extension - and so the Facebook api TOS doesn't apply.

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"

They can write that in their terms & conditions all they like, but it doesn't make it legal or enforceable.

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.

I suspect they removed his page because they can't take action directly against him.

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.

Um, 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.

>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.

The pages don't do that.

If you use their website, especially if you build something on it, then you need to live by their rules.

Really? Tell that to AdBlock.

Am I forbidden from wearing tinted glasses while looking at Facebook as well? After all, they "alter the experience".

If they put that clause in their ToS, and then decided to kick you off Facebook for wearing tinted glasses, they'd be well within their rights.

The ToS is irrelevant. They can kick you off FB for no reason at all, if they want.

They would be in their rights - legally speaking - but would it be reasonable? And would you expect it to happen?

Whether or not it is reasonable is besides the point here -- I was responding to a bad analogy.

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)

> going after tools that make users like Facebook more

I suspect it has more to do with the fact that many of these tools strip ads.

I installed Social Fixer, and it doesn't strip ads, at least not by default.

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.

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.

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.

Facebook 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.

At 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.

> Why isn't Comcast regulated like a utility?

good question.

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?

This behaviour certainly fits with Facebook's controlled-ecosystem and behaviours associated with maintaining that..