[ConstantVigil]

> I love to hate on Meta, but their actions here are spot on and make my morning very enjoyable as I sip my cup of coffee.

You might want to reassess your intelligence there friend. It seems to be suffering from a common form of cogntive dissonance combined with some form of confirmation bias.

How so?

Well you clearly don't like scraping, otherwise you wouldn't be agreeing with a criminal... So there's the confirmation bias...

Which is also the cognitive dissonance part. You clearly don't like Meta/Zuckerberg by your own admission; but you are agreeing with a empty rhetoric attack against people who are smart enough to make use of Zuckerbergs terrible security practices...

Do you not see the problem in this?

[blantonl]

This is a total non-sequitur argument here. You've gone from accusing me of lack of intelligence to suffering from cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, to Facebook's terrible security practices: simply because I'm pleased that an organization has taken action against Web scrapers for violation of Terms of Service.

Yes, I've gone on record indicating that I believe Web scraping to be generally unethical, and that I'm pleased that some action was taken against those that make it their business to do so. And that is all that I have stated in my OP. You've decided to take me on some circular mental gymnastics journey I'm still trying to wrap my head around.

[windexh8er]

Let me restate this how I view what you've stated: your position is that because Facebook has a Terms of Service that may define something that is not illegal - means that one must abide by it? Also... Facebook/Meta/Zuckerberg have lied over and over and over very publicly to get their way or to give themselves an advantage: by giving themselves unfettered and unwarranted access to data that they profit from by their own fast and loose rules.

If Facebook/Meta/Zuckerberg are OK with lying, stealing and cheating - then why should anyone leveraging their online properties need to abide? Until they're held accountable under broader rules I see no reason the consumption side can't bend them as well. And you may argue "this isn't how it works" but we all know this isn't how Facebook/Meta/Zuckerberg operate. They operate under the premise of: do whatever makes us money because breaking the rules is the cost of doing business. So, no - they don't get to spew propaganda to the advantage of their business under the guise of protecting users. That is complete and utter bullshit.

[ConstantVigil]

Thank you. This is pretty much what I am getting at as well, though in different words.

But of course, the general populous thinks it knows better than the people who actually know best. That being those of us who have been able to live our lives while learning from not just our mistakes; but others around them.

We are the rare and few; and considered the enemy to the mob. Good luck comrade.

[pc86]

Who is the criminal here? Scraping is not illegal. This is a civil suit, so even if Meta wins, it's still not remotely criminal for anyone involved.

Also please explain to me how someone giving a company their Facebook credentials is an example of "people who are smart enough to make use of Zuckerbergs terrible security practices."