For folks who aren’t quite ready to delete Facebook, it seems like refusing the “Log in with Facebook” option on third-party apps and websites is a good place to start dipping their toes in the water. While it is convenient, it spreads Facebook’s reach into a bunch of places there is no reason for it to be.
  1. @petebrown Do third party sites even get kickback from FB for thier willing participation in this ritual? If not, wow, what a strange acquiesnce.

  2. @Sylari I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think they do (could be wrong on that). I think it’s more that they believe/hope that it makes it easier for people to engage with their site/service.

  3. @petebrown Do users have an identity on those site if they chose to use FB logon exclusively? Like if FB went away tomorrow, would a third party site have any way to allow them to logon afterwards? It sounds wose than link shorteners.

  4. @Sylari as I understand it, no—the third party is basically handing over user registration and authentication to Facebook. There are advantages to doing so, e.g., not having to build and manage your own authentication system, but it seems like most sites and apps offer a “Log in with your email/user ID” option as well, so they’re having to build such a system anyway. That makes me think it is mostly about user convenience.

  5. @petebrown Like their site becomes a shell of FB, empty if either FB or the FB user gets deleted (or changes policy) and no way to migrate that site experience to alternate logon without starting anew?

Comments are closed.


  • Shea Gardner liked this note on