Oh wow, this app got pulled from everything because it's an unofficial 3rd party client for Instagram? I'll say it again, companies should be legally forbidden from blocking 3rd party clients. They don't have to explicitly support them, but taking action to explicitly thwart them (and writing ToS that forbids them) should be outlawed. There's no reason I should have to be subjected to untold tracking, snooping and advertising functionality to be able to post or look at photos and comment on them. Tech companies get to exploit the public under the guise of something useful, while also getting to completely dictate the terms of that usage. The only thing that limits their exploitation of users is the laws applicable in the relevant jurisdictions (and sometimes not even that). Too bad looking out for the rights of users is apparently just a complete non-issue to anyone in power.

Privacy proponents should cheer for this. Legally Meta must take down the app to comply with FTC's order (obligatory not a lawyer): https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/07/ftcs-5-bi...

> Another way the FTC says Facebook violated the order was by failing to adequately assess and address privacy risks posed by third-party developers. Other than getting developers to click an “I agree” terms-and-conditions box when registering an app with the Facebook Platform, Facebook didn’t screen developers or their apps before giving them access to massive amounts of data that users had designated as private. Of course, in the wrong hands, information like that can grease the wheels for identity thieves and fraudsters.

> The order imposes additional requirements to address Facebook’s illegal conduct. For example, Facebook must implement a stringent program to monitor third-party developers and terminate access to any developer that doesn’t follow the rules.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/07/ftcs-5-bi...

It's worth noting that the app received $1M in preseed funding: https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/27/og-app-promises-you-an-ad-...

It's also worth noting that the Instagram API is extremely locked down for typical users (which is the reason why there hasn't been a clone like this) as it is limited to Businesses and Creators, but the app demonstrates features not available by the official API: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/instagram

They tweeted that they reverse-engineered the Android API, which would likely get personally you banned anywhere, even without a business: https://twitter.com/TheOGapp_/status/1574811387737407490

These companies can ban the US President from their platforms. What makes you think they can't ban yours - you don't even have any nuclear launch codes...

This is honestly the exact reason I haven't tried to develop a facebook app or extension... I've heard that the smallest mis-step can get your account suspended like this. Not like a 'here's a warning' but 'you read a variable you shouldn't have, now your whole account is deleted'.

This isn't usually a problem, except Facebook has a pretty unique position in our society. It might be the only social media some of our immediate family have. It's the de-facto social media presence for some smaller community organizations (like parent groups) and hobby groups. A ban from Facebook is a lot more deeply impactful than being banned from, say, gmail or something.

I could understand if they sent the developers a cease-and-desist or initiated some sort of legal action with this as a potential consequence. I could even understand blocking the app until it was resolved. But actually searching up the dev team and banning their personal Facebook accounts for something they're building on Instagram...

This makes it so much scarier because Oculus is also Meta, and the community there is still heavily reliant on developers to grow since Meta has sunk so much money into it and it still hasn't quite found its footing in the market. Do they think more people are going to develop for it if a potential consequence is their facebook account will be perma-banned as a first-resort? Would you be willing to experiment on that platform?

Anyways, I'm no gazillion-dollar monopoly, but it seems vindictive more than good business sense.

Well, what did they expect? Does anyone think a company will sit around while you strip their app of their revenue source and republish it?

Now I'm all for trying, I use adblockers and SponsorBlock, but we all know that they're unofficial methods that could be taken down at any time. That's exactly what happened to Vanced.

If it was a really good app you made, why not also make your own backend and completely decouple from meta?

If you build an app using the meta platform in a way that is a clear violation of their tos, the app will obviously be killed the second it gets popular. If I was running a service and another company attempted to do this to my service (violated my TOS, built on top of my private API in a way that striped all my revenue and repackaged it under their name, etc) I would definitely ban them...

Breaking::

> UN1feed says Apple removed The OG App, which let users create and share Instagram feeds without ads and suggested posts, from the App Store; the app ranked #50

[1] https://www.techmeme.com/220928/p47#a220928p47

[2] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/the-og-app/id1637701040

It seems like the mildest action that could be taken; perhaps they will proceed to DMCA takedowns.

1. Violating TOS

2. No clear privacy policy (re: how does the app protect and utilize user info)

3. Circumventing user access/security policies

Maybe I missed something, but it sounds like everyone on their team participated in multiple violations on Meta’s platform. I admire what they were doing, trying to polish a turd, but I don’t think they should get upset when they get sh*t on their hands.

Meta/Facebook/Instagram are a cancer that needs to be excised. No amount of plastic surgery will cure the rot within. The platform exists only to get users into a feedback loop that they can use to advertise to you.

Best of luck to the team, hopefully they come to see this as a positive thing, find alternative solutions, and never have to deal with that garbage platform again.

So a Newpipe for Facebook? Finally. For sure more difficult to pull off, but good luck!

Many folks on here might be too young to remember, but there was an era where cable companies served premium channels with a scrambled signal to all customers, and sold access by way of attaching the appropriate filter. In fact, all channels were protected in this way, with your cable box holding the necessary filters. Albeit, some were merely hidden by a band pass filter and not scrambled.

Anyhow, those arguing that third party clients ought to have access to the API are making a similar argument to those who wanted to use third party filters to access channels they hadn't paid for. Why, it would go, if the cable company didn't serve the signal then it wouldn't be available to be used.

Which is not unlike claiming that the data provided by a private API is free for the taking. It's not, and it's certainly not with the consent of those endeavoring to keep the API private, even if it's accessible.

Maybe I’m just a graybeard but all this is reminiscent of the shenanigans that Ma Bell pulled. Not exactly the same but similar. History doesn’t repeat itself but it rhymes, as they say.

There’s a very simple solution here: common carrier. Treat social media as a modern utility. No viewpoint discrimination, censorship, algorithmic social manipulation or proprietary on-ramps.

The bad behavior has gone on long enough.

Yet another argument for why you shouldn't list your employer on LinkedIn.