Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

On the tag, I have been seeing some users answering questions by suggesting that the OP violate the Facebook TOS.

I will always downvote answers or questions that deal with violating Facebook's TOS. Since Facebook started directing all technical QA about using their platform to the filter, should these posts be flagged and ultimately deleted?

I definitely feel that they should and I'd also like to hear what others think about suggesting this sort of behavior.

share|improve this question
Down-voting and/or commenting is the correct behaviour in these cases. – ChrisF Jan 26 '12 at 22:37
Agreed with ChrisF. It's not our job to enforce Facebook's TOS, so these are still real and valid answers/questions from our perspective. Doing something like that is a bad idea though, hence downvotes are fine. – Matthew Read Jan 26 '12 at 22:39
Non-legal activities can generally be commented on or flagged. Facebook isn't a special case there just because SO is in business with it or because of Stockholm syndrome. – mario Jan 26 '12 at 22:41
@mario - Moderators aren't here to deal with this sort of thing. Down-votes and/or comments should be enough. – ChrisF Jan 26 '12 at 22:43
@ChrisF, I think moderators babysitting external legalese is indeed pointless. But some activites (poster blatantly inquiring about spamming techniques) aren't covered with community voting alone, and flags for quick deletion can be in order. – mario Jan 26 '12 at 22:47
@mario: Who says violating Facebook's TOS is "not legal"? – user7116 Jan 26 '12 at 22:55
Here is my answered that prompted this (note i warned the user) – bkaid Jan 27 '12 at 6:14
@OffBySome, Your question is not directly what prompted this; It was however the first time I've seen a 10k suggest this. (but yea it happened right after I saw your post). I didn't put links to examples of these sorts of posts (questions and answers) pretty much because of my views on the subject - me posting links to these "offending" posts would defeat the purpose of not wanting this information to be there at all. I agree that moderators are not here to enforce 3rd party TOS. – Lix Jan 27 '12 at 10:55
I do not agree however that these should be considered "valid" answers. We're not in the wild-wild-west here :P I do think that some self restraint should be brought into play though. Its a touchy subject and it all depends on the context - but as we all know the majority of questions asked on that filter originate from a lack of understanding of the limitations of the platform; "Just because you want this information - doesn't mean you should do anything to get at it"... In this case we are dealing with peoples privacy after all... – Lix Jan 27 '12 at 11:02
@Lix I agree with you there, but I don't see why content like that should be deleted. Say somebody asks "how can I get a user's <insert sensitive data point here>", the answer is "it's not possible - it's a violation of privacy, and FB's TOS.". That's a good thing to have on file on Stack Overflow for the next guy who wants to know the same thing, isn't it? Now if somebody provides a way to circumvent such a restriction, that's a different matter. But you'll find that such content is already getting deleted on SO on a daily basis. Mod-flagging the contribution should usually do. – Pëkka Jan 27 '12 at 11:16
Yea - that's exactly what I'm saying - content that explains how its done - sometimes its in an answer, but I've seen it in a question stating : "Here is my chrome extension that does XYZ (violation of TOS), I'm having problems with the ABC feature (not relevant because they already posted code showing how the violation is acomplished)". Question answer pairs explaining that this is not possible, here is a possible alternative, etc.. are great. – Lix Jan 27 '12 at 11:28
A related question. Personally, violating facebook's TOS makes me glow with tickles. – Won't Jan 27 '12 at 15:29
up vote 20 down vote accepted

I will always downvote answers or questions that deal with violating Facebooks TOS.

You have the right to vote as you please; your policy is perfectly valid. I personally, however, would look at which part of the TOS is being violated. If it's about circumventing some ridiculous, borderline illegal provision that common sense dictates should be scrapped immediately, I can see myself even upvoting.

Since facebook started directing all technical QA about using their platform to the filter, should these posts be flagged and ultimately deleted.

I don't think anything should be deleted because it violates a contract that SO is not party to; we are not here to enforce Facebook's (or any other company's) interests. Stuff should be deleted because it's bad content. SO's own rules are perfectly sufficient for making this decision.

In most cases, questions or answers discussing TOS violations will probably also be delete-worthy under SO's rules. But there's no reason to cast this into stone.

share|improve this answer
ridiculous, borderline illegal provision ftw – Adam Rackis Jan 26 '12 at 22:46
Just borderline? – Daniel Beck Jan 26 '12 at 22:54
"look at which part of the TOS is being violated" - definitely true. I've studied those policies very thoroughly after action was taken against me for some pathetic like button some client requested. But I was one of the administrators - so I got taken down too. In my case there aren't any "ridiculous, borderline", etc.. cases - its all to do with privacy - and IMO its all valid. – Lix Jan 27 '12 at 11:10
@Lix I don't know enough about the Facebook TOS to agree or disagree, but even if what you say is true now, who's to say it'll stay that way? What if they add a paragraph to the TOS saying that criticism of Facebook in posts is prohibited? (A dumb example, I know. But you know what I mean.) My point is, let's not make a company's TOS the guideline for our actions - let's stick with our own rules, and the law. As said, in most cases, TOS violations will also be violations of SO's rules anyway. – Pëkka Jan 27 '12 at 11:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .