Social Fixer (disclaimer: I am the author) has been around a lot longer than FBPurity, and was the original Facebook extension (originally called Better Facebook). The author of FBP was kicked off Facebook because of his questionable practices and breaking of rules. It's used by more people (at the moment) because he maintains it more actively than I can right now, and he shamelessly promotes it. Over the years, features that appear in Social Fixer mysteriously appear shortly after in FB Purity. That's some background.
The other reason, btw, is because I don't want to be responsible for taking "destructive" action. If a user misunderstands a feature and doesn't know why they don't see their friend in their newsfeed anymore, I don't want to be responsible for that. I will never unlike, never unfriend, never unfollow, etc. I won't even trigger positive actions automatically. This is the kind of thing Facebook really cracks down on, and because it's very fragile, a change in their API could cause the wrong behavior from a browser extension. It's not worth it.
I won't do features like this, partly for this reason. A feature like this hits their API through code, and that is the part that probably got it shut down. Years ago, I got a similar complaint from Facebook - that my code was calling their API repeatedly, and this was not allowed. I changed my code to not do things like this, in order to stay alive.
So I avoid any features that would make repeated calls to their API to make changes on the user's behalf.
Creator of Social Fixer here. I've been around over 10 years and made it through multiple attempts to shut me down, remove my pages, and a c&d. With several hundred thousand users, I think they know that I will make some noise if they come after me again. ;)
Billions of people around the world will soon be forced into Facebook's newly redesigned layout, and based on the outcry already, many will hate it (typical).
For over a decade, I've been empowering internet users through software, allowing them to take control and use sites as they wish, rather than how the site creators wish.
"Old Layout" is my new extension that reverts Facebook to the old layout, even if you've been forcibly switched to the new one.
It does this by pretending to be an older browser - one which Facebook has determined it can't support in the new layout. So, it serves you the old one instead! It's not perfect, but most users will not experience any problems or differences from the experience they are used to.
At some point, Facebook may remove this fallback option. But until/unless that happens, users can once again use the site in the way that they wish.
If Facebook created something that was so awesome that users would be willing to pay for it, they wouldn't need to rely on ads. They could have a much bigger and more stable revenue stream from people who actually wanted their service and were willing to pay for it.
I would buy into this model. Not everyone would, no. But I imagine enough would that it could change their focus. Maybe.
EXACTLY. Listen, I hope to benefit from my work on Social Fixer. Donations are not my income, but they are a small added bonus. I've not gotten rich from this. But my goal is not to get rich. My goal is to create useful software that empowers and benefits users. I trust that if I do this not only for this app but for others, that I will benefit. It's a long-term bet, not a short-sighted investment strategy. There aren't enough people in the world who will do the right thing and hope to profit from it, rather than doing anything in their power to profit. Facebook certainly seems to fall into the latter category.
They have many people who have invested their lives creating this company. They want their payout. If they have to create a bubble to get it, that's what they are going to do. They'll get their cash, you can bet on that.
Agreed - I think the ToS is pretty clearly targetting people who alter the display of the site for OTHERS, not themselves. Malware, DoS attacks, etc.
If they apply this rule to individuals who alter the way the site appears to them, they are opening a can of worms. There is no way they consistently enforce this.
I have a family and limited time. I could lay out an exact plan of how to do a lot of things, including get around all of this. But I just don't have enough time to implement it.
My microwave has been broken for 4 weeks and I haven't had time to even replace it. There are only 24 hours in a day.
>Facebook is a publicly traded company; they have to make decisions that benefit their stockholders or they will go bankrupt.
This is a very short-sighted view, common to many companies. The BEST way to satisfy the stockholders is to create a fantastic product that users love, long-term. Example: Amazon.
Unless your primary interest is creating a short-term bubble and profiting before it pops, which seems to be the mentality of many investors and companies these days.
I don't like that attitude. I'm not looking to get rich quick. I'm looking to do cool and interesting things. And if I get richer in the long term, all the better.
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.
I agree with this, and (1) is kind of the warning I was trying to spread to other business owners, for whom this is NOT just a side project. I can get around this. Other people and businesses seem to be going "all in" on Facebook, without realizing what a huge risk they are taking.
I understood and understand the risk. That's part of the game I'm playing with them, but I also have the right to call them out when I don't like it, and to bring attention to this problem that others might have at some point.
Agree 100%. People have asked for a mobile version of this app, and one of the big reasons I won't do it (or build any mobile app) is because I refuse to invest a lot of time and effort into something that can only be distributed through a 3rd-party channel, with their blessing. I will not take the risk that Apple will not suddenly decide they don't like my app tomorrow. No way.
Agreed. Unfortunately, this is a personal side project. If it were my business, I would certainly approach it differently.
The only benefit they get is that lots of people continue using Facebook who otherwise may have given up on it. Oh, and they sometimes seem to add features that I come up with first.
But in general, yes - I am someone they would like to just make go away.
Which is fine - they have a right to do that. But everyone should be aware of this, because at some point when Facebook decides they don't like your politics, or hobby, or sexual choices, they'll arbitrarily shut you down, too. So, don't give them any more than you can afford to lose. But I see many companies investing a ton of time and money into their Facebook strategy. My point is to beware, because it may not be a good choice.
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.
Agreed. But also note - this isn't a point of failure. It's an annoyance, and it's Facebook being arbitrary and inconsistent. But it doesn't affect my ability to deliver the product. It just makes it a little harder, because the most logical communication medium between myself and my users has been taken away.
As the developer of one of the most popular Facebook customizers (Social Fixer / http://SocialFixer.com ), I call your bluff.
Facebook is the wild west. Their code is bloated and overly-complex, their approaches to UI designs are truly insane, and writing any kind of Facebook-customizing app is incredibly difficult. I think Google has been way more supportive of developers than Facebook.
The bottom line is, they offer a site and for many reasons (support, consistent brand image, etc), they want the same UI for all users. So they aren't going to explicitly support extensions that let users change how their sites work, fragmenting their users into lots of different UI's that might conflict and cause problems that are impossible for them to debug. And both Facebook and Google are huge operations, with much bigger goals than you know of. Tweaks to the UI are probably not even on their radar.
If this is your first UI redesign to endure, I say welcome to the club! I've had my stuff break on a regular basis as Facebook randomly tosses out new UI changes (and not even to everyone at the same time!). And they do it ALL THE TIME. That's the game we play. Frustrating, certainly, but also very challenging. It forces you to write better, more robust, more DOM-agnostic code, and pushes you to solve problems in better, more efficient ways.
If you don't like it, opt out and stop doing it. IMO, whining about it is kind of lame.