-8

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 facebook.stackoverflow.com 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.

Improve this question
12
  • 4
    Down-voting and/or commenting is the correct behaviour in these cases.
    – ChrisF Mod
    Commented Jan 26, 2012 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.
    – user154510
    Commented Jan 26, 2012 at 22:39
  • 1
    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
    Commented Jan 26, 2012 at 22:41
  • 1
    @mario - Moderators aren't here to deal with this sort of thing. Down-votes and/or comments should be enough.
    – ChrisF Mod
    Commented Jan 26, 2012 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
    Commented Jan 26, 2012 at 22:47
  • 9
    @mario: Who says violating Facebook's TOS is "not legal"?
    – user7116
    Commented Jan 26, 2012 at 22:55
  • Here is my answered that prompted this (note i warned the user) stackoverflow.com/a/9025926/265570
    – bkaid
    Commented Jan 27, 2012 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
    Commented Jan 27, 2012 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
    Commented Jan 27, 2012 at 11:02
  • 1
    @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.
    – Pekka
    Commented Jan 27, 2012 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
    Commented Jan 27, 2012 at 11:28
  • 2
    A related question. Personally, violating facebook's TOS makes me glow with tickles.
    – user1228
    Commented Jan 27, 2012 at 15:29

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
20

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 facebook.stackoverflow.com 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.

Improve this answer
4
  • 4
    ridiculous, borderline illegal provision ftw
    – Adam Rackis
    Commented Jan 26, 2012 at 22:46
  • Just borderline?
    – Daniel Beck
    Commented Jan 26, 2012 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
    Commented Jan 27, 2012 at 11:10
  • 2
    @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.
    – Pekka
    Commented Jan 27, 2012 at 11:12

You must log in to answer this question.

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