
Did Facebook hijack a developer’s app for its own purposes? - tilt
http://gigaom.com/2011/07/12/did-facebook-hijack-a-developers-app-for-its-own-purposes/
======
mkjones
Hey guys, I work on anti-spam at FB (though not specifically platform) and
just looked into this. It looks like their app was disabled for pre-filling
content so that it looks like users typed it, which makes for a super spammy
experience and is explicitly against our ToS. They were disabled within policy
(and the reason was communicated to them - check out the OP at
<http://www.nimitkumar.in/?p=196>).

The vanity URL "videocalling" wasn't reclaimed until June, and I'm pretty sure
was completely unrelated to this app being disabled. If we wanted it for our
own use, we would have been up-front about that, not done some roundabout
make-up-an-excuse-and-kill​-an-innocent-app tomfoolery that the poster is
suggesting.

Besides, it'd be a gigantic waste of time to build marketing pages 3 months
before a product launch given how fast things change even in the week or two
prior to a launch.

All that being said, we're working pretty hard on improving the developer
experience when an app is found to be in violation of policies. This isn't
something I work on directly, so I don't wanna go shooting my mouth off, but
check out <https://developers.faceboo​k.com/blog/post/521/> for some
background.

~~~
rwolf
The first post you linked to goes on to say "We obviously did not 'pre fill'
any fields without any user action."

Is there any evidence you can provide our ridiculous INTERNET COURT that they
did?

~~~
mkjones
It looks like this app was both automatically classified and manually verified
by a person as violating the terms, and I trust that there wouldn't be a
double failure in that regard.

I'm hesitant to speculate at all since, as you hint, this could quickly
devolve into an unproductive he-said / she-said squabble.

------
Skroob
When you're building on someone else's platform, you're subject to their
whims, whether you like it or not. Facebook can delete your app for no reason,
so can Apple and Google and Microsoft. If you're building a Netflix or Twitter
app and they change their API (or terms of service) to disable your app, you
don't really have any legal recourse. Yeah it sucks, but it's a pitfall of
doing business on someone else's platform, and one that developers should be
keenly aware of before they start.

~~~
domador
In a sense, whatever we build is always built upon someone else's platform.
The Internet itself is someone else's platform. The legal framework in our
respective countries is someone else's platform. These two platforms are
harder to control than an online service like Facebook, but they can likewise
be controlled in ways that are stifling and unfair.

Given that every useful platform is owned by someone else, I despise arguments
of the form "Such-and-such a platform is not yours, so don't complain if its
owners behave like jerks". I agree that complaining is generally fruitless and
we must be cautious about binding ourselves to platforms where we are
essentially disenfranchised. However, I think we all have the right to call
out thuggish actions wherever we see them and to insist that platform owners
treat their users and dependents respectfully. I will cheer for people who
stand up to jerks before I criticize them for having exposed themselves up to
harm from a platform's owners.

~~~
a3_nm
Two important differences:

\- The Internet is not controlled by a single entity.

\- The Internet is documented by standards.

------
wccrawford
"This is grossly undemocratic" hahaha

Websites are not democracies. Private property isn't a democracy. Companies
aren't democracies.

Get it out of your head that they are and life will go a lot smoother.

~~~
Skroob
And "freedom of speech" only applies to the government, and only governments
in the US. Websites that delete your comments are not limiting your freedom of
speech. </pet_peeve>

~~~
pavel_lishin
They are limiting your freedom of speech; however, they are not infringing on
the rights granted by the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution.

------
jneal
Not hard to believe Facebook would do such a thing. I see so many times big
companies like Facebook do things like this assuming they will receive no
flack, and as soon as flack comes their way they pop out with an apology and
act like nothing ever happened.

I'm sorry, but this "do first, ask later" mentality annoys the piss out of me.

------
cbs
Developing on someone else's platform, you're just doing market research for
them. See: Windows, Mac OS, iOS, Android.

------
larrik
I can't imagine Facebook's actions are actually illegal. And if they ARE
illegal, it seems to me that it would most likely mean that the lawyers who
wrote the developer's terms of use messed up somehow.

------
gojomo
The article mentions 'manifest destiny' but 'eminent domain' would be the more
apropriate analogy. Facebook is its own country, in many ways.

------
tantalor
Answer: no. Read the TOS.

------
kellysutton
And that's why you make sure you always have platform independence.

------
biznickman
Umm this app had practically no traffic. I feel like the developer is just
using this to try and get attention for a failed product.

------
ignifero
If developers could sue Zuck, he would be doing 7 times life now.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I don't think people get sent to prison for civil suits.

~~~
ignifero
i believe i wasn't being literal.

