Facebook let Netflix see user DMs, quit streaming to keep Netflix happy
Facebook’s past data‑sharing deals with Netflix and Spotify, which allegedly granted these companies programmatic access to users’ private Facebook messages, are prompting renewed concern over how “private” social media messaging really is. Commenters debate whether this access was a legitimate, consent‑based OAuth integration or an over‑scoped API that normalized invasive practices, with further worries about how such arrangements intersect with Meta’s end‑to‑end encryption claims. The thread also ties these issues to broader antitrust and power‑concentration questions, arguing that opaque data sharing and surveillance-friendly designs are symptoms of under‑regulated tech monopolies.
Alleged Facebook–Netflix/Spotify DM Access
- Thread centers on claims that Facebook let Netflix (and Spotify) programmatically access users’ Messenger inboxes via “Extended API” / “Inbox API” and “Titan API” deals.
- Some see this as monetizing private messages and part of broader anticompetitive arrangements.
- Others stress this was tied to specific “chat inside Netflix/Spotify” features, not random bulk sharing.
User Consent, OAuth, and Scope
- One side argues: if users explicitly logged into Netflix/Spotify with Facebook and enabled messaging, they effectively chose to use those apps as third‑party Messenger clients, so read/write access is expected.
- Critics counter: users reasonably thought they were just sending recommendations, not granting full historical inbox access; calling this “opt‑in” ignores dark patterns and overbroad scopes.
- There’s debate whether Facebook’s API design (“Inbox” read permissions vs write‑only) was lazy, negligent, or intentionally expansive.
End‑to‑End Encryption Confusion
- Timeline discussed: Netflix deal started years before Messenger’s E2E became default; earlier E2E was optional and likely rare.
- Several note that even with E2E, the app UI can exfiltrate decrypted text, so the main trust issue is the client software, not just the cryptography.
- Others argue if Meta can read messages, it’s not “true” E2E; some suspicion that marketing language is misleading.
Onavo and Broader Surveillance Allegations
- Comments reference court docs and past reporting about Onavo “kits” doing MITM on HTTPS traffic to monitor competitors like Snapchat.
- Some ex‑employees say Onavo was seen internally as “sketchy,” but awareness of full scope varied.
- Many view these allegations, if accurate, as among the worst privacy abuses in tech.
Antitrust, Collusion, and Competition
- Several see the Netflix deal as part of an anticompetitive pattern: Meta using privileged data and special APIs to manage threats and partners.
- Long subthread debates whether this is monopoly behavior vs “mere” collusion, and how/if regulators should restrict vertical integration and exclusive content deals.
Privacy Expectations and User Behavior
- Many express that “private” or “direct” messages being accessible to business partners violates basic expectations, regardless of TOS.
- Some advocate moving to Signal or minimal online use; others worry that overreacting could kill useful interoperability and data portability.