It does like seem there are so many inherent disadvantages that the original proponents must have been confused or intentionally ignoring realistic factors…
It’s like they never even tallied up all plausible advantages and disadvantages in the first place. So how did anyone determine it was an overall net positive?
Are you proposing that interoperability is not an overall net positive? If it's getting a bad rap right now it's just because it's not always simultaneously a competitive advantage. But that line of thinking is a race to the bottom.
I mean, why not just kill your competitors? Then your product, however bad, would be the only one. Clearly a net negative, but a competitive advantage.
What has changed is that we've recently lowered the bar for how much of a net positive we plan on shooting for. Top dog on the trash heap is, I guess, now an enviable position.
What are the privacy and reputation risks for me as a user, if I'm able to access my data via API?
If you're referring to 'net positive [for facebook]' rather than [for users] or [for society], then the point is conceded that facebook can make more profits abusing their users versus being more considerate of them.
How is it relevant to what? We were discussing "net positives" as in net positives for society, but it sounds like you're referring to net positives for Facebook alone, at the expense of all others.
> The user isn’t the one making the decision to implement it or not
This is true. Here is another difference between them: Facebook isn't the one being harmed by cutting off approved API access to 3rd parties.
It seems like we both agree that Facebook and users are different groups, in different circumstances, with different things to gain and lose from different decisions made here.
With that shared foundation of understanding: Why should we care about what Facebook wants, more than we care what users want? Why should we care about Facebook wanting to stifle startups and other competitors, more than we care what users want? Why should we care about Facebook's profit margin, more than we care what users want?
Of course Facebook is free to do what is good for them and bad for users, and they indeed chose (and continue to choose) to do so. Here we see the predictable result: Users criticizing them for it.
We are all smart and can comprehend Facebook's purely-economic "fuck the users, we wanna make money" decision criteria just fine, but we don't have to respect it.
No just the opposite, each person gets to decide whether something is good or bad, and when we sum across those perspectives we end up with a net positive or negative.
Going against that grain might be advantageous in certain cases but ultimately you have to live in the world that you create so its usually not a great long term strategy.
It’s like they never even tallied up all plausible advantages and disadvantages in the first place. So how did anyone determine it was an overall net positive?