[slightwinder]

From the article, it seems to be service for scrapping data you have access anyway. As long as they only handle those data to the requesting customer, whose login they used, I don't see a difference between general public, and this users personalized "public". If access is still limited to the people who have the access-rights, then I don't see a difference between accessing through the official interface, or via scrapped data.

[saddlerustle]

Users make information available on facebook with the expectation that they are able to later control access to it (other than the obvious threat model of screenshotting, etc). This is violating that expectation and thus their privacy.

[falcolas]

> they are able to later control access to it

This has never realistically been the case. An illusion of control is provided by facebook, but they've never really put much effort into it. For a really simple example, look at how long content remained available to the entire internet after "deletion". Sometimes it took years.

Expecting any semblance of privacy from a company who profits from using and selling your data is, if I'm being blunt, lunacy.

[gfodor]

This is a false expectation and it’s important people learn this.

[IfOnlyYouKnew]

They’ll stop posting in the way they currently enjoy and will, therefore, have lost some freedom. Great outcome!

In other news: your partner may also leak your most intimate secrets. I hope they do, to teach you a lesson?

Every trust can be betrayed. Why do you believe a world without trust would be better? Only because you cannot handle the nuance of different levels of trust?

[woojoo666]

> In other news: your partner may also leak your most intimate secrets

Indeed, and that's why it's important to choose the right partner. Likewise, it's important to choose the right friends on instagram to share your photos with. Because as you noted, they can always screenshot away and there's nothing Facebook can do.

What's dangerous is thinking that Facebook/Meta is the keyholder. That's a false perception, perpetrated by Facebook because they want to monopolize everyone's data. It was and always will be about the people who you share your information with. Don't want your profile scraped and leaked? Don't share it with sketchy people.

[gfodor]

The counterparty risk from Facebook has almost nothing to do with trust of individual human beings. It has to do with the nature of systems, failure, vulnerabilities, attack surface area, etc. It's "privacy through obscurity" to act in a way that your data is not on the precipice of being leaked by a bad actor or a mistake.

[vorpalhex]

The freedom to live in a fictional world where Facebook safeguards your data is just as available regardless the reality of the situation.

The reality of the situation is that Facebook is a walled garden built on the labor of it's users and it is objecting to those users reclaiming the fruits of their labor by scraping.

[ogurechny]

So taking shackles off is called “losing freedom” now? Also, people enjoy many things, just look at the junkheads. Still, it's more natural to have trust in a heroin addict than to have trust in businesses like Facebook.

[the_fury]

"They’ll stop posting in the way they currently enjoy and will, therefore, have lost some freedom."

That is, quite honestly, one of the oddest definitions of freedom I've come across.

[Nextgrid]

There's no evidence of the accused scraper sharing the scraped data with anyone but the account-holder, so the privacy of their friends is still protected.