The trouble is, opting out of facebook used to mean just that: opting out of facebook. Increasingly, however, it means opting out of engaging with a host of other sites. I think it's pretty poor form of a site to segregate its users by locking out those who don't happen to have an account on a separate third-party site.
Your comment struck a chord with me, that's a succinct explanation of the creepover of these services everywhere.
Made me consider a shared (fake) facebook account - one that would be used just for such interactions, shared among folks that are averse to creating an account themselves. Sharing the username-password combo itself would soon lend itself to trollish password reset attempts though, so perhaps there could be a service that accepts email and makes facebook posts on your behalf using its own account. The email format could be something like:
Type: Wall post [or "comment" or "private message"]
Page Url: <Vice's page>
Content: First!
Facebook (or whatever other service this is created for) would probably catch up with the profile sooner or later, but that just means time to move to a new fake profile. Given the amount of disregard these companies show for user privacy, I have no moral compunction against such "deception".
Perhaps a weekend project for someone with this itch to scratch.
Building on third party services is a brilliant, if not essential, part of the innovation process. The fact that people choose not to use the most third party service among content websites is their choice (and it's an understandable one), but they should learn to live with the consequences of that decision, which will include not being able to use some services they might want to.
Saying "It'd be better if content sites didn't use FB!" is something that would have a detrimental impact on the web experience of more than a billion other people who have chosen not to opt out. That's something that you have to consider when you suggest an alternative solution.
If you can build a good, working service without using anything from a third party then you can build the same service quicker, better, and cheaper using third parties and concentrating on just the innovative part. There is no sensible business reason to build everything yourself.
I don't see where you're showing that it is "essential" to the part that is being innovated to use these third-party services. It's the essential part I'm having a problem with.
I'm suggesting it's essential to use third party services to do the things that aren't innovative, so you have the time, runway, and focus to do the innovative things.
For example, no SaaS startup should be writing their own payment system unless they're a fintech startup doing payments. If you're wasting time building things that you buy in for much lower cost then you will fail.
I'm not saying not to use third parties, I'm disagreeing with using the term essential in that context. It is too encompassing and final of a statement. To me it implies that any innovation in the space cannot possibly happen without the usage of third-party services, which is simply not true.
I believe s73v3r is saying that using third party services allows you to dedicate more time to innovation, rather than spending your time coding services that already exist and are probably better than you can write yourself anyway.
It absolutely can. But now you're dividing your time between what you're trying to innovate in, and doing boilerplate stuff that has already been solved and set up for you. There are only so many hours in the day.
I have not disagreed with that. Is it wrong of me to think that the word "essential" is far too limiting for the context of the statement? You seem to agree with the point I'm trying to make here.
