Web Browser is called User Agent for a reason. It is not Corporate Agent or Facebook Agent. It should grant every right to the user with regards of look and feel of web sites, and none to the website being browsed.
Web site may merely suggest how it is best served.
I agee completely. This also extends to HTTP requests and all kinds of automation. We should be able to make a custom Facebook client if we want to. There's no reason their client must be the only one allowed to talk to their servers. Competition in this is space is obviously good for us. User agents should do what's good for us, not what's good for some company. If subverting their business interests is good for us, that's exactly what the software should do. We are its masters.
Really, the user should have all the power. These companies already have what, billions of dollars? That's power enough for them.
Yeah. Their overreach in that case is even more offensive. The whole notion of Facebook having any say in the matter is absurd. Who are they to say which extensions or scripts people should or shouldn't be able to use?
> I wonder if Facebook is legally still obliged to provide all its information to the user in the EU even after banning the user, and if they comply.
If they aren't, they should be. Facebook's contracts aren't above the law which says people have a right to their data. Does the law care that the user was banned? I don't think so. Nor should a banishment somehow invalidate someone's rights.
Web site may merely suggest how it is best served.