Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yes. Even assuming FB is correct, they would then have to create a list of which browsers they consider "non-automating". Would GreaseMonkey installed on FF count? How about some VBA on top of IE? If I travel outside of net range and my browser caches up lots of FB pages overnight, does that count? Beats me. We'd all have to use pre-approved tools to access our FB accounts -- or face criminal prosecution.

It's not just that it is non-intuitive. Lots of legal things are non-intuitive. It's not even that it completely breaks the idea of HTML, even though that's pretty huge. It's not even that somehow by using FB I have given up my right to purchase and use my own equipment to browse the web, thereby limiting competition, although that is huge also. FB is actually trying to reserve the right to criminally prosecute me unless I use tools that are on a list that they preselect, and presumably update. So, logically, the first thing I'd like to do is see this list and find out how it is created and updated.

The entire purpose of software in this setting is to automate the retrieval and display of HTML based on my particular preferences, and in the time and configuration of my choosing. That's the way the web has worked ever since there was a web. That's why the the web is structured the way it is. That's why the web can continue to expand and grow.

I'm growing tired of attorneys on fishing expeditions.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: