8 ms·

Facebook has given some developers access to an unannounced Chat SDK

78 points by rachellaw 11y ago

bobby_9x 11y ago
IRC used to have all kinds of these bots back in the day. Mostly for downloading software. I remember even building one for the hell of it when I got bored one summer.
- rachellaw 11y ago
  What's fascinating is the bot-bandwagon is mirroring the early app market. With apps, you downloaded things to do things. With bots, you integrate them into things, so they'll do it for you. (Save extra step laziness)
  - WorldMaker 11y ago
    What worries me is that that this mirroring also applies to the erection of giant walled gardens as well. It seems curious that this current bot-bandwagon has exploded after the XMPP interoperation world imploded. Different APIs now to build bots for Slack, Facebook, Google, Skype, etc...
    - rachellaw 11y ago
      I think it's in-combo with the whole AI/automated personalization as well. It used to be very difficult to do intelligent bots, but now you have tensorflow/caffe/word2vec frameworks that come built-in with NLP The walled garden thing has always been an issue though. I mean Facebook threw a fit when India turned down their "facebook-only" internet: http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21685292-critics-argue-mark-zuckerbergs-generosity-cover-landgrab-facebooks-free-internet http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21685292-...
      - iofj 11y ago
        India didn't turn it down, it introduced it, and then other megacorps, Microsoft up front, lobbied until it got outlawed.
efields 11y ago
OK, so Everlane is a (mostly, originally) online-only clothing retailer that started Facebook messaging me about my order status, including shipping updates. Obviously, this is when you've auth'd with them via Facebook. Messages can include html, including images and map data, so they used that to show tracking progress with some nice branding. I always wondered how they did that. Nice use of the platform. If your user auths with Facebook, of course it makes sense to do your customer communication via Facebook, too.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Under what circumstances would one want to receive these sorts of messages over a Facebook message instead of via email? > If your user auths with Facebook, of course it makes sense to do your customer communication via Facebook, too. If I've authed with you, it does not mean I want you to message me through Facebook.
  - nlawalker 11y ago
    >> Under what circumstances would one want to receive these sorts of messages over a Facebook message instead of via email? If you're the kind of person who instead asks "Under what circumstances would one want to receive these sorts of messages via email instead of over a Facebook message?"
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      Forgive me, I'm over 30. I barely want personal messages in Facebook as it is.
      - stephenitis 11y ago
        I'm 28 and I have a 50/50 mix of people using Facebook messenger just like a SMS. It's definitely a shift that is happening in people's comfort level with social media as a primary comm channel.
ihuman 11y ago
I've been looking for something like this ever since they deprecated their XMPP Chat API. I hope this goes public soon.
- iza 11y ago
  Pidgin has had a working plugin for a while: https://github.com/jgeboski/purple-facebook https://github.com/jgeboski/purple-facebook
carlosdp 11y ago
Pretty sure this wasn't actually a secret, they announced Messenger Business integrations months ago https://www.messenger.com/business https://www.messenger.com/business ...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- minimaxir 11y ago
  That's a bit different. Presumably this API would be used for more than user-unfriendly data mining.
thieving_magpie 11y ago
Nice way to try and lock in more facebook users. If I ever encountered a business requiring Facebook for communication, that'd be the end of my patronage. Facebook isn't doing a good job of masking their desire to force everyone onto their site (e.g. 'free internet' in India).
- njovin 11y ago
  I've worked with the new Chat SDK and our customers' use cases aren't geared toward forcing (or even encouraging) users into using Facebook Messenger. Most of them are just trying to meet demand from their customers. In our particular case, we have customers with a lot of international travelers who have access to data while abroad but not necessarily SMS. IMO it's a lot better than having a dedicated app you have to download to interact with a specific brand.
  - thieving_magpie 11y ago
    I agree that it's a nice option to have and I doubt many companies care to only provide one method of communication via Facebook. But there will be some, as there have been in the past that wouldn't let me register for their services since I didn't have facebook (Spotify at one point, another was a productivity app that was featured on HN). It just seems like a slow creep by FB to become (as cliched as this is nowadays) 'too big to fail'.
nichochar 11y ago
The monetization possibilities here are unbelievable. Have keys to a platform with a billion users that use a product this often? I would kill for access :)
- GFischer 11y ago
  In South America (and I guess Asia too), access to WhatsApp would be even bigger - and it's Facebook owned...
joelrunyon 11y ago
On the other end of this - this sucks. Anyone who has a Facebook page now has users encouraged to message them (and you get scored if you respond too late). Just found out this out later & it's a headache when you're trying to funnel people through your actual customer service channels and not trying to handle things on Facebook. ugh.
- kitcar 11y ago
  If your goal is to have ecstatically happy customers, you may want to begin thinking about your customer service channels as wherever your customers want to talk to you, versus where you want to talk to them. I know its a lot of work / not possible for all businesses / makes running the business more difficult, but hopefully minimizing unhappy customers should result in sales growth which offsets the investment in customer service.
  - joelrunyon 11y ago
    That's true, but by directing people to where we CAN help them & track their data / info, we're better able to do that. It'd be great as an "optional" feature, but the fact that they enable it automatically & grade you on that basis is a bit ridiculous.
    - awad 11y ago
      Would software that unified your owned channels vs their owned channels help you here with data/info unification help you here?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- nl 11y ago
  Don't most customer service platforms support Facebook now? Salesforce certainly does: http://www.salesforce.com/service-cloud/features/social-customer-service/ http://www.salesforce.com/service-cloud/features/social-cust...
shmerl 11y ago
Another walled garden chat? Why can't they develop a shared IETF supported standard (if XMPP isn't good enough for them)? It's a shame what a huge mess IM landscape has become because big players don't care about standardization and federation.
- gkoberger 11y ago
  Counter argument: Standardization and federation comes at a cost. Facebook can build a more cohesive product with interesting features by controlling the ecosystem completely. That's the whole point; they gain nothing by just being yet-another-protocol. That being said, Facebook does let you chat via Jabber. I use it (with Messenger on OSX), and it works, but it's a completely mediocre experience devoid of what makes FB Messenger special. An example: FB lets you send one-click "likes". It's a great feature; it means "acknowledged". Yet you can't send it with third-party clients, and third-party clients receive it as a URL to an image of a thumbs-up. There's dozens of features like this. How frustrating would it be if Facebook Voice Calls only worked with some people, or someone's client didn't support group messages?
  - shmerl 11y ago
    > Standardization and federation comes at a cost. At a cost that provides long term interopraibility benefits. But these just care about short term rip offs and as well causing interoperability problems for their users (i.e. preventing communication with other services). We must be extremely lucky this didn't stay like that for e-mail. > they gain nothing by just being yet-another-protocol. That's the point. They measure their gain in how much they can mess up their users (by preventing them from communicating with users of other services). While gain should be measured in how useful such services can become (enhancing, not crippling communication). > That being said, Facebook does let you chat via Jabber It's not federated (which defeats the main purpose). > I use it (with Messenger on OSX), and it works, but it's a completely mediocre experience devoid of what makes FB Messenger special. If they wanted to improve things and thought that XMPP can't reach that goal, they could propose their non XMPP chat as IETF standard. Same as Google could do with Hangouts and so on.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
base 11y ago
The main reason as a developer that I'm trying to stop using anything related with the Facebook platform is that more and more of their APIs are private and only given access to a handful group of companies. This includes: messenger apis, graph apis, the recent shop/section tabs on pages, payments apis etc. It's becoming a huge walled garden.
- rudedogg 11y ago
  Several years ago I made a program to create ad variations for Facebook Ads. I had to parse the page and submit the html forms because they wouldn't grant me API access. A huge list of companies had access, and most of them had pretty shitty apps to be honest. I wrote a nice request for access, talking about the exciting features I'd like to use the Ads API for, and how it could help advertisers make more effective advertisements. They said no, and my business failed after a few months. My users were basically risking losing their Ads account by using the software, and it made marketing it very difficult. I guess it pays to be connected, but it's difficult when you don't live near San Francisco, etc.
xena 11y ago
So, what IRC has had for all its life?
bikamonki 11y ago
I hope they do the same for Whatsapp. Telegram has this awesome feature where a bot can send a menu, that feature opens huge possibilities for self-service processes in businesses. Most native apps that business develop do just that (consult balance, fill forms, buy more services, etc). Why the need to make businesses develop custom apps and users install them/use them when chat apps are already installed and users already trained to use them. Furthermore, it is quite simple to avoid abuse (spam) for instance Telegram bots have acces to user IDs and nicks only, a bot cannot send spam to a phone number or email. At some point, if FB does not open its chat apps the opposite will occur: want to get fast, easy, awesome support from a business? Install Telegram and chat with its bot.
throaawaythrow 11y ago
Throw away for obvs reasons. Lately I've started hating using facebook. I get spam on my feeds. I get spam on my notifications. I don't really talk to friends there. I only contact friends on rare occasions when an opportunity comes by. I do use messenger to talk to people close to me. Most of the time I use other platforms to talk to teams, groups of friends, etc. If I start getting spam on my inbox I'm joining a new platform and deleting my facebook account. Most of the content I get there is garbage. The only reason I haven't left yet is because of the Messenger app.
- maqr 11y ago
  > Throw away for obvs reasons. Not super obvious to me, unless you work at Facebook. Is it really that much of a social taboo to delete your Facebook account? I've been refusing to sign up for about 11 years now and I'm pretty OK with the social consequences.
zanny 11y ago
So you abandon open protocols, and then try to be yet another whatsapp / snapchat / hangouts / skype / whatever the hell. Didn't we do this in the 90s? We had AIM, Yahoo, and MSM. We learned that is stupid as hell, and we should just use the same protocol. So then they all supported XMPP. And a decade later, the cycle repeats. Everyone walls up, tries to treat chat as this money pot, and I hope we can get back to open standards sooner rather than later. I'm sick and tired of not being able to talk to people easily and just resorting to email since thats the only common open protocol left people actually use.
- nl 11y ago
  We had AIM, Yahoo, and MSM. We learned that is stupid as hell, and we should just use the same protocol. So then they all supported XMPP. I think you are misinformed. AIM: Never supported XMPP Yahoo: Never supported XMPP MSN: Never supported XMPP What happened was that someone wrote code to send messages between them all. However, you still needed accounts on each for it to work. Source: No service can talk to all services. This means in order to talk to contact X, you must have an account on the same service as contact X, or on any compatible service. If you have an account on AIM, ICQ, or MobileMe, you can chat with anybody who uses AIM, ICQ, MobileMe, or SMS. If you have an account on XMPP ("Jabber"), Google Talk or LiveJournal, you can chat with anybody who uses XMPP ("Jabber"), Google Talk or LiveJournal. In the official clients, MSN users can chat with Yahoo! users but this is not yet supported by Adium. Some XMPP ("Jabber") servers (mostly private ones) allow chats with proprietary services such as AIM, MSN, and Yahoo! via a mechanism called "XMPP transports". https://adium.im/help/pgs/Accounts-ListOfServices.html https://adium.im/help/pgs/Accounts-ListOfServices.html
  - herbst 11y ago
    I assume he was referring rather to Google and Facebook which both supported XMPP at some point.
    - nl 11y ago
      That would be correct. Unfortunately the author appears to believe otherwise. I quote: We had AIM, Yahoo, and MSM. We learned that is stupid as hell, and we should just use the same protocol. So then they all supported XMPP. I think the context is pretty clear.
smrtinsert 11y ago
Hey make up some cool stuff with interesting ideas so we can change terms and steal your entire business, thanks!
frankacter 11y ago
I'm seeing a fbchess option. @fbchess help returns: @fbchess help Start game with random colors: @fbchess play Pick the colors: @fbchess play white/black Pick the opponent: @fbchess play white John Make a move: use Standard Algebraic Notation @fbchess e4 or @fbchess Pe4 moves pawn to e4 Nbd2 to move knight from b-file to d2 B2xc5 to take on c5 with 2nd rank bishop e8=Q to promote pawn to queen 0-0-0 or O-O to castle Claim draw (e.g. 3-fold repetition): @fbchess draw claim Offer a draw in the current position: @fbchess draw offer Offer an undo of the last move: @fbchess undo Resign: @fbchess resign Show current position: @fbchess show Show stats between current players: @fbchess stats Continue a game from another conversation: @fbchess continue From 1:1 conversation, @fbchess continue with [friend] From group chat, @fbchess continue from [thread name] @fbchess play actually initiates a game including a picture of the active chess board within the chat window.
herbst 11y ago
Glad thats too late. At least in my environment Facebook communication pretty much died out. I always wanted a bot, actually i always do on any platform, and i hated that they made it so super hard. I may will use this for Advertisment tho once it gets public. I heard people on Facebook love to get ads thrown at their faces.

78 points by rachellaw 11y ago

IRC used to have all kinds of these bots back in the day. Mostly for downloading software. I remember even building one for the hell of it when I got bored one summer.

rachellaw 11y ago
What's fascinating is the bot-bandwagon is mirroring the early app market. With apps, you downloaded things to do things. With bots, you integrate them into things, so they'll do it for you. (Save extra step laziness)
- WorldMaker 11y ago
  What worries me is that that this mirroring also applies to the erection of giant walled gardens as well. It seems curious that this current bot-bandwagon has exploded after the XMPP interoperation world imploded. Different APIs now to build bots for Slack, Facebook, Google, Skype, etc...
  - rachellaw 11y ago
    I think it's in-combo with the whole AI/automated personalization as well. It used to be very difficult to do intelligent bots, but now you have tensorflow/caffe/word2vec frameworks that come built-in with NLP The walled garden thing has always been an issue though. I mean Facebook threw a fit when India turned down their "facebook-only" internet: http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21685292-critics-argue-mark-zuckerbergs-generosity-cover-landgrab-facebooks-free-internet http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21685292-...
    - iofj 11y ago
      India didn't turn it down, it introduced it, and then other megacorps, Microsoft up front, lobbied until it got outlawed.

efields 11y ago

OK, so Everlane is a (mostly, originally) online-only clothing retailer that started Facebook messaging me about my order status, including shipping updates. Obviously, this is when you've auth'd with them via Facebook. Messages can include html, including images and map data, so they used that to show tracking progress with some nice branding. I always wondered how they did that. Nice use of the platform. If your user auths with Facebook, of course it makes sense to do your customer communication via Facebook, too.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Under what circumstances would one want to receive these sorts of messages over a Facebook message instead of via email? > If your user auths with Facebook, of course it makes sense to do your customer communication via Facebook, too. If I've authed with you, it does not mean I want you to message me through Facebook.
- nlawalker 11y ago
  >> Under what circumstances would one want to receive these sorts of messages over a Facebook message instead of via email? If you're the kind of person who instead asks "Under what circumstances would one want to receive these sorts of messages via email instead of over a Facebook message?"
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Forgive me, I'm over 30. I barely want personal messages in Facebook as it is.
    - stephenitis 11y ago
      I'm 28 and I have a 50/50 mix of people using Facebook messenger just like a SMS. It's definitely a shift that is happening in people's comfort level with social media as a primary comm channel.

ihuman 11y ago

I've been looking for something like this ever since they deprecated their XMPP Chat API. I hope this goes public soon.

iza 11y ago
Pidgin has had a working plugin for a while: https://github.com/jgeboski/purple-facebook https://github.com/jgeboski/purple-facebook

carlosdp 11y ago

Pretty sure this wasn't actually a secret, they announced Messenger Business integrations months ago https://www.messenger.com/business https://www.messenger.com/business ...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

minimaxir 11y ago
That's a bit different. Presumably this API would be used for more than user-unfriendly data mining.

thieving_magpie 11y ago

Nice way to try and lock in more facebook users. If I ever encountered a business requiring Facebook for communication, that'd be the end of my patronage. Facebook isn't doing a good job of masking their desire to force everyone onto their site (e.g. 'free internet' in India).

njovin 11y ago
I've worked with the new Chat SDK and our customers' use cases aren't geared toward forcing (or even encouraging) users into using Facebook Messenger. Most of them are just trying to meet demand from their customers. In our particular case, we have customers with a lot of international travelers who have access to data while abroad but not necessarily SMS. IMO it's a lot better than having a dedicated app you have to download to interact with a specific brand.
- thieving_magpie 11y ago
  I agree that it's a nice option to have and I doubt many companies care to only provide one method of communication via Facebook. But there will be some, as there have been in the past that wouldn't let me register for their services since I didn't have facebook (Spotify at one point, another was a productivity app that was featured on HN). It just seems like a slow creep by FB to become (as cliched as this is nowadays) 'too big to fail'.

nichochar 11y ago

The monetization possibilities here are unbelievable. Have keys to a platform with a billion users that use a product this often? I would kill for access :)

GFischer 11y ago
In South America (and I guess Asia too), access to WhatsApp would be even bigger - and it's Facebook owned...

joelrunyon 11y ago

On the other end of this - this sucks. Anyone who has a Facebook page now has users encouraged to message them (and you get scored if you respond too late). Just found out this out later & it's a headache when you're trying to funnel people through your actual customer service channels and not trying to handle things on Facebook. ugh.

kitcar 11y ago
If your goal is to have ecstatically happy customers, you may want to begin thinking about your customer service channels as wherever your customers want to talk to you, versus where you want to talk to them. I know its a lot of work / not possible for all businesses / makes running the business more difficult, but hopefully minimizing unhappy customers should result in sales growth which offsets the investment in customer service.
- joelrunyon 11y ago
  That's true, but by directing people to where we CAN help them & track their data / info, we're better able to do that. It'd be great as an "optional" feature, but the fact that they enable it automatically & grade you on that basis is a bit ridiculous.
  - awad 11y ago
    Would software that unified your owned channels vs their owned channels help you here with data/info unification help you here?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
nl 11y ago
Don't most customer service platforms support Facebook now? Salesforce certainly does: http://www.salesforce.com/service-cloud/features/social-customer-service/ http://www.salesforce.com/service-cloud/features/social-cust...

shmerl 11y ago

Another walled garden chat? Why can't they develop a shared IETF supported standard (if XMPP isn't good enough for them)? It's a shame what a huge mess IM landscape has become because big players don't care about standardization and federation.

gkoberger 11y ago
Counter argument: Standardization and federation comes at a cost. Facebook can build a more cohesive product with interesting features by controlling the ecosystem completely. That's the whole point; they gain nothing by just being yet-another-protocol. That being said, Facebook does let you chat via Jabber. I use it (with Messenger on OSX), and it works, but it's a completely mediocre experience devoid of what makes FB Messenger special. An example: FB lets you send one-click "likes". It's a great feature; it means "acknowledged". Yet you can't send it with third-party clients, and third-party clients receive it as a URL to an image of a thumbs-up. There's dozens of features like this. How frustrating would it be if Facebook Voice Calls only worked with some people, or someone's client didn't support group messages?
- shmerl 11y ago
  > Standardization and federation comes at a cost. At a cost that provides long term interopraibility benefits. But these just care about short term rip offs and as well causing interoperability problems for their users (i.e. preventing communication with other services). We must be extremely lucky this didn't stay like that for e-mail. > they gain nothing by just being yet-another-protocol. That's the point. They measure their gain in how much they can mess up their users (by preventing them from communicating with users of other services). While gain should be measured in how useful such services can become (enhancing, not crippling communication). > That being said, Facebook does let you chat via Jabber It's not federated (which defeats the main purpose). > I use it (with Messenger on OSX), and it works, but it's a completely mediocre experience devoid of what makes FB Messenger special. If they wanted to improve things and thought that XMPP can't reach that goal, they could propose their non XMPP chat as IETF standard. Same as Google could do with Hangouts and so on.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

base 11y ago

The main reason as a developer that I'm trying to stop using anything related with the Facebook platform is that more and more of their APIs are private and only given access to a handful group of companies. This includes: messenger apis, graph apis, the recent shop/section tabs on pages, payments apis etc. It's becoming a huge walled garden.

rudedogg 11y ago
Several years ago I made a program to create ad variations for Facebook Ads. I had to parse the page and submit the html forms because they wouldn't grant me API access. A huge list of companies had access, and most of them had pretty shitty apps to be honest. I wrote a nice request for access, talking about the exciting features I'd like to use the Ads API for, and how it could help advertisers make more effective advertisements. They said no, and my business failed after a few months. My users were basically risking losing their Ads account by using the software, and it made marketing it very difficult. I guess it pays to be connected, but it's difficult when you don't live near San Francisco, etc.

xena 11y ago

So, what IRC has had for all its life?

bikamonki 11y ago

I hope they do the same for Whatsapp. Telegram has this awesome feature where a bot can send a menu, that feature opens huge possibilities for self-service processes in businesses. Most native apps that business develop do just that (consult balance, fill forms, buy more services, etc). Why the need to make businesses develop custom apps and users install them/use them when chat apps are already installed and users already trained to use them. Furthermore, it is quite simple to avoid abuse (spam) for instance Telegram bots have acces to user IDs and nicks only, a bot cannot send spam to a phone number or email. At some point, if FB does not open its chat apps the opposite will occur: want to get fast, easy, awesome support from a business? Install Telegram and chat with its bot.

throaawaythrow 11y ago

Throw away for obvs reasons. Lately I've started hating using facebook. I get spam on my feeds. I get spam on my notifications. I don't really talk to friends there. I only contact friends on rare occasions when an opportunity comes by. I do use messenger to talk to people close to me. Most of the time I use other platforms to talk to teams, groups of friends, etc. If I start getting spam on my inbox I'm joining a new platform and deleting my facebook account. Most of the content I get there is garbage. The only reason I haven't left yet is because of the Messenger app.

maqr 11y ago
> Throw away for obvs reasons. Not super obvious to me, unless you work at Facebook. Is it really that much of a social taboo to delete your Facebook account? I've been refusing to sign up for about 11 years now and I'm pretty OK with the social consequences.

zanny 11y ago

So you abandon open protocols, and then try to be yet another whatsapp / snapchat / hangouts / skype / whatever the hell. Didn't we do this in the 90s? We had AIM, Yahoo, and MSM. We learned that is stupid as hell, and we should just use the same protocol. So then they all supported XMPP. And a decade later, the cycle repeats. Everyone walls up, tries to treat chat as this money pot, and I hope we can get back to open standards sooner rather than later. I'm sick and tired of not being able to talk to people easily and just resorting to email since thats the only common open protocol left people actually use.

nl 11y ago
We had AIM, Yahoo, and MSM. We learned that is stupid as hell, and we should just use the same protocol. So then they all supported XMPP. I think you are misinformed. AIM: Never supported XMPP Yahoo: Never supported XMPP MSN: Never supported XMPP What happened was that someone wrote code to send messages between them all. However, you still needed accounts on each for it to work. Source: No service can talk to all services. This means in order to talk to contact X, you must have an account on the same service as contact X, or on any compatible service. If you have an account on AIM, ICQ, or MobileMe, you can chat with anybody who uses AIM, ICQ, MobileMe, or SMS. If you have an account on XMPP ("Jabber"), Google Talk or LiveJournal, you can chat with anybody who uses XMPP ("Jabber"), Google Talk or LiveJournal. In the official clients, MSN users can chat with Yahoo! users but this is not yet supported by Adium. Some XMPP ("Jabber") servers (mostly private ones) allow chats with proprietary services such as AIM, MSN, and Yahoo! via a mechanism called "XMPP transports". https://adium.im/help/pgs/Accounts-ListOfServices.html https://adium.im/help/pgs/Accounts-ListOfServices.html
- herbst 11y ago
  I assume he was referring rather to Google and Facebook which both supported XMPP at some point.
  - nl 11y ago
    That would be correct. Unfortunately the author appears to believe otherwise. I quote: We had AIM, Yahoo, and MSM. We learned that is stupid as hell, and we should just use the same protocol. So then they all supported XMPP. I think the context is pretty clear.

smrtinsert 11y ago

Hey make up some cool stuff with interesting ideas so we can change terms and steal your entire business, thanks!

frankacter 11y ago

I'm seeing a fbchess option. @fbchess help returns: @fbchess help Start game with random colors: @fbchess play Pick the colors: @fbchess play white/black Pick the opponent: @fbchess play white John Make a move: use Standard Algebraic Notation @fbchess e4 or @fbchess Pe4 moves pawn to e4 Nbd2 to move knight from b-file to d2 B2xc5 to take on c5 with 2nd rank bishop e8=Q to promote pawn to queen 0-0-0 or O-O to castle Claim draw (e.g. 3-fold repetition): @fbchess draw claim Offer a draw in the current position: @fbchess draw offer Offer an undo of the last move: @fbchess undo Resign: @fbchess resign Show current position: @fbchess show Show stats between current players: @fbchess stats Continue a game from another conversation: @fbchess continue From 1:1 conversation, @fbchess continue with [friend] From group chat, @fbchess continue from [thread name] @fbchess play actually initiates a game including a picture of the active chess board within the chat window.

herbst 11y ago

Glad thats too late. At least in my environment Facebook communication pretty much died out. I always wanted a bot, actually i always do on any platform, and i hated that they made it so super hard. I may will use this for Advertisment tho once it gets public. I heard people on Facebook love to get ads thrown at their faces.