The nuance of how "we put up a service ... talk to it on our terms" is enforced is what is deeply concerning to me. Is that up to Facebook to use technical means to enforce their terms or is the force of law behind them? Where is that line drawn?
If I modify the DOM with an extension to hide content I don't like am I running afoul of the law? How about using Lynx instead of Chrome?
What constitutes "talking to" a service? Is it data I send to that server, or is it how my computer processes the data I receive and how I interact with it?
Different people are going to have wildly different opinions, and some of them are very troubling to me. Committing fraud is one thing, but simply using a service without exceeding your authority in a way the service provider doesn't prefer seems like something the service provider should handle without the force of law behind them.
It is up to Facebook to use both technical means and enforceable contract law to draw lines around how their service can be used, the same way it is up to any of us to do the same with services we stand up on the Internet.
There are limits to both tools, and legislatures can enact new restrictions in response to public demand. But none of that is in play in this story.
If the argument upthread was "we should demand laws that prevent Facebook from locking out extensions to their platform", I wouldn't have a rebuttal (I might or might not support those restrictions). But the sarcastic dunk that was actually made, that it was somehow ridiculous that Facebook would have some say over the terms of how their platform was used, was weird and worth commenting on. It's not only not ridiculous, but actually the world as it exists today.
>[they said] it was somehow ridiculous that Facebook would have some say over the terms of how their platform was used
It's less about FB's right to set boundaries, and more about what FB does when they feel the boundaries have been violated. In this case, they've perma-banned the guy and initiated threatening legal action. That action's extreme demands are NOT in FB's TOS, and reflect on FB's attitude of entitlement.
One argument against this is that FB is just doing the "standard legal thing" of demanding everything up-front, and then negotiating. That is true, but I don't think that just because every lawyer tries to bully their clients enemy means they should. And in this case FB is Goliath, swinging hard and fast at David.
Consider it by analogy: let's say I have a fax machine at my house, and someone keeps sending me faxes on it even though I don't want them to.
I could set up some technical mechanism to stop it, such as blocking their phone number. But, if it's easy for them to switch phone numbers, then that won't work well. And I may not be able to just block a whole area code, because there may be people I want to let fax me coming from that area code as well.
My other recourse, then, is threaten to sue them, and, if they continue, to actually sue them. And I would argue that I should be able to do that. Sending me faxes costs me financial resources and ties up my fax machine, so it's hardly zero cost to me, and it makes sense to have some third party to sort out the dispute and decide where the line should be drawn.
I can imagine other worlds with gentler, more even-handed approaches to sorting out these kinds of issues. Unfortunately, most those approaches fall under the general category of "regulation", and the country I reside in, the USA, decided a long time ago to eschew that kind of approach in favor of one that relies heavily on lawyering up and lawsuits.
what if there is only one brand of fax, they are selling your phone number to advertisers and they demand you receave the faxes?
or say you have to listen to robocalls or els you cant use some unrelated monopolistic service or product?
i like the analogy but the real story is who would use such a tool. if someone feels they need such extreme measures i wouldnt dare deny them this. who in there right mind?
Facebook has a public service and one of the options is to Unfollow; someone wrote a browser extension to do this automatically for all items.
Fundamentally, what is the difference between automating this process and doing it manually?
In your example of a fax machine, arguably fax numbers are a private entity; there is no requirement for publishing fax numbers nor is fax automatically publicly listed for everyone to see. A malicious spammer would need to either obtain the fax number from a listing somewhere or brute-force the number, and similarly, the only way to __know__ that a fax has gone is ambiguous. obtain the fax number from a listing somewhere or brute-force the number, and neither is really analogous to what a browser offers.
I think your analogy conflates a few concepts incorrectly, namely that there is some unexpected or undue financial consequence to Facebook for publicly allowing users to Unfollow Groups; if the extension __needlessly__ generated traffic, this is closer to your analogy. But as I can see how the extension works (based on archived copies found on shady sites), it's not undue traffic, it's just expediting the process of manually Unfollowing groups.
Facebook shouldn't have a recourse here as I see it; the automation causes no undue burden on facebook that isn't possible by manually clicking, an arbitrary review of the extension suggests there is no undue stress on the servers that differs in any way from the traffic one might generate if they manually unfollowed groups. Automating the process indeed might be undesirable for Facebook in some way, but fundamentally the same result is achievable with manually clicking, and I think a more substantial evidence of damage is required from Facebook to justify such a threat.
If we take it to a logical comparison, should Facebook have the right to block a mouse + keyboard automation tool that I script to react at human speeds but is pixel-perfect to unfollow groups?
If the answer to this from Facebook is "yes", then the natural question is "what is the similarity between these processes?"; if the answer is "automation", then the natural question is "why is this damaging to Facebook as opposed to me just manually unfollowing??", and I'm not confident Facebook has a reasonable/strong answer to this.
If Facebook is fine with the slower method, then the question becomes "what is the real concern with the faster method? I will skip the logical follow-ups here as the response is already long.
Facebook should __not__ have the right to sue just because they don't like an activity; no one benefits from this; quite the opposite, smaller parties are actively harmed by such behavior as they lack the financial resources or confidence (or both) to respond to such a legal challenge, and this was never the intent of law. One should not need heavy financing to secure their natural rights; if Facebook wants to position that the extension is somehow illegal as per terms of service, I think the duty is on them to demonstrate how it's significantly damaging and how it differs from a dedicated person armed with a cup of coffee and an hour of free time; if Facebook cannot make a significant distinction outside of convenience for the person, then I don't see a basis for legal recourse.
If I modify the DOM with an extension to hide content I don't like am I running afoul of the law? How about using Lynx instead of Chrome?
What constitutes "talking to" a service? Is it data I send to that server, or is it how my computer processes the data I receive and how I interact with it?
Different people are going to have wildly different opinions, and some of them are very troubling to me. Committing fraud is one thing, but simply using a service without exceeding your authority in a way the service provider doesn't prefer seems like something the service provider should handle without the force of law behind them.