Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Goes After Greasemonkey Script Developer

palmerj3 writes "The popular Facebook Purity greasemonkey script (now renamed Fluff Buster Purity) has been used by thousands to rid their Facebook feeds from the likes of Mafia Wars, Farmville, and other annoying things. Now, Facebook is threatening the developer of this script. Does Facebook have the right to govern their website's design and functionality once it's in the browser?"

375 comments

  1. No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No. They don't...

    1. Re:No... by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Insightful

            You have to consider the American legal system. After they're done threatening legal action, then they'll drag him into court. It won't be a one-hearing thing either. It'll span years. They may get a court order that he can't develop nor distribute such software until the conclusion of the case.

          Say he wins in court. He can continue to distribute his software. That's assuming he can afford legal representation for that long. Most normal people can't financially handle a prolonged court case, so even if he started fighting it from the start, he'd run out of funds and do exactly what they tell him to.

          If he loses in court, it'll cost him an absolute fortune. They can hire better lawyers, and keep it tied up in court for years. Ok, now he has to stop distributing in the future (since they probably got the court order to not distribute for the duration of the court case, he'll be faced with fines, and probably Facebooks legal fees.

          So his choices are to stop, and accept it, or to fight it and spend every penny he has in court.

          Someone like Facebook doesn't mind spending the money to drag it through court. It's "encouragement" for others not to do the same thing.

       

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:No... by cbope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod parent up. This is precisely what is wrong with the American legal system. Even if you do no wrong, companies and corporations can drag you through the legal system and exhaust any funds you have trying to defend yourself.

      Even. If. You. Have. Done. Nothing. Illegal.

      Rampant abuse by shady lawyers doesn't help either, since they get paid no matter who wins a case.

    3. Re:No... by Nikker · · Score: 1

      The beauty about not making money off of it is you can just post the code somewhere and stop hosting it, let it go viral. Facebook has to face the fact that people are still using the site but just don't want to see some certain updates. I bet if someone came up with a game that the object was to put your hand over the screen in the area of a Mafia Wars update that it would violate / hurt Facebook's feelings and you (or I guess I would) get a lawyer sending me junk.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    4. Re:No... by El+Jynx · · Score: 1

      Very true.. the only thing we can to is Streisand Effect it as much as possible to help slap Facebook in the face. Maybe even set up a dedicated group resenting this move. Who knows, they might get the point. But it looks like we're seeing Microsoft's grubby little fingers in FB policy again.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
    5. Re:No... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You have to consider the American legal system. After they're done threatening legal action, then they'll drag him into court. It won't be a one-hearing thing either. It'll span years. They may get a court order that he can't develop nor distribute such software until the conclusion of the case.

      I am not very familiar with the legal system so I will post my question here:

      In the scenario you posted above, could it happen in reverse?

      Say ... a class action suit suing Facebook for infringing on the Users' Rights, since the greasemonkey thing is taking place on users' browsers, with nothing to do with Facebook's server site.

      Would that class action suit be valid?

      Can someone in the legal profession please help sorting this out?

      Thank you !

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    6. Re:No... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      They may get a court order that he can't develop nor distribute such software until the conclusion of the case.

      ... and if they do, you'll see hundreds of other similar scripts get passed around.

      Also, they can't mandate how a browser displays a page. That would require that they block text-only browsers, junk-busting proxies, etc.

      Besides, who in their right mind friends anyone who plays farmville or mafia wars?

    7. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would be the relief sought? Individuals have no rights to use Facebook except those explicitly granted by their terms of service, which terms users have agreed to let Facebook amend at any time.

      Blizzard's TOS which limits what may run on users' computers while using their WoW servers has been durable.

      -M5B

    8. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He could easily counter sue for all court costs, plus whatever money he loses from missing work, plus money for the hassle of it all. There are tons of lawyers who would take the case on contingency since it is near impossible for Facebook to win.

    9. Re:No... by msclrhd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, if Facebook wins, it will set a precedence. It will mean that potentially, anything that modifies a website from what the website author produces will be illegal.

      This means all greasemonkey scripts and AdBlock Plus/other ad blocking technologies as these modify a sites look from what is intended.

      It may also be applicable to mashup sites that take content from other sites and combine it, although this is different to the above, so would need to be tested in court.

      It could also mean that developers are less likely to innovate in these areas for fear of being sued. There is always the possibility of being sued, but having this as a precedence would increase that chance.

      There are some options, though.

      If I were the developer, I would seek help from the FSF and/or try to find a lawyer willing to do the case pro-bono.

    10. Re:No... by msclrhd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ah, this is a trademark issue, not a "we don't want the script modifying our site" issue.

      I can kind of see this for "Facebook", but then the developer is not creating a "FaceBook2" or "NewFaceBook" site that competes with Facebook.

      Like others here, I don't see Fluff Busting (FB) being a trademark infringement though. If it is, it is rather tenuous.

    11. Re:No... by t0p · · Score: 1

      Your question should be "Who in their right minds plays Mafia Wars?" I am relatively sane (posting in this madhouse notwithstanding) but I have Friends on F***B*** who spend an inordinate amount of time playing that game. I am interested in other things they do, but I prefer not to wade through thousands of messages like "X will give you a box of bullets if you help him massacre the Anthill Mob".

      --
      http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
    12. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is rather assuming the developer lives in the US.

      If he cares about his product, he'll simply offload it to someone (I'd do it) who lives in a more sane jurisdiction, shut down "his" version of it, thus making sure it remains available.

    13. Re:No... by wireloose · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Facebook probably has a valid complaint. If you follow the links all the way to the author's page, you will note that he calls it "Fluff Busting Purity, also known as F*** B*** Purity" and he continues to use the F*** B*** and F.B. terms throughout. It's pretty obviously just a smack in their "face." If he wants to avoid lawsuits, he should just name it "mysocialnetwork purity" or something completely unrelated to FB. Then they could do nothing about it.

    14. Re:No... by delinear · · Score: 1

      But do Blizzard enforce that against individual users (by disabling accounts) or against the developers of the software? (Genuine question, I don't follow WoW). If it's the latter then this is analogous, if it's the former then FB would have to start deleting the accounts of users who visited their site while using this script. Somehow I can't see their user base being too happy about this.

    15. Re:No... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Based on the default currency of his donate page I'd say he's in the UK.

    16. Re:No... by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree. Facebook doesn't really have a claim of infringement, any more than Paramount has a claim against the book "The Science of Star Trek". It refers to the protected name without claiming ownership or competing in the same market. All the site and the script comments need, really, is a disclaimer that it is not in any way associated with Facebook or their related properties.

      Facebook already got Streisanded here. By grasping at the only available straw (the name), they've helped the script get noted by the Slashdotters, and it will be impossible to stop now. Even if the original script site is ordered removed, multiple branches will be created, since they can't forbid the underlying code.

    17. Re:No... by dindinx · · Score: 5, Funny

      Also, if Facebook wins, it will set a precedence. It will mean that potentially, anything that modifies a website from what the website author produces will be illegal.

      This means all greasemonkey scripts and AdBlock Plus/other ad blocking technologies as these modify a sites look from what is intended.

      Hum, this would make IE illegal too!

      --
      DindinX
    18. Re:No... by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      > mashup sites that take content from other sites and combine it

      Somehow I think the GOOG would have something to say about that.

      With all of the non-non-evil stuff which Google does which might annoy me, I am happy that it has a commercial interest in defending a lot of my rights, like (some kinds of) fair use.

    19. Re:No... by FrostDust · · Score: 1

      By grasping at the only available straw (the name), they've helped the script get noted by the Slashdotters, and it will be impossible to stop now.

      Are we talking about the same Slashdot here? Aren't these the people who love to proclaim how they're too cool to have a Facebook, anytime a related story pops up?

    20. Re:No... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Facebook own the trademark to the letters "F" and "B" now? And any phrase that includes those letters is infringing? I think that's a stretch.

      Maybe MySpace should sue Facebook for using the "ace" ("space", "face"? Sounds quite similar, if you ask me...) Except then MySpace would be sued by MicroSoft.

    21. Re:No... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Given that it's just the initials, I think it's even more dubious.

      According to the parent, the Atari ST was infringing on Star Trek...

    22. Re:No... by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      It absolutely astounds me how much time some of my FB friends spend on this shit. They don't just play Mafia Wars. They don't just play Farmville. They don't just play Cafe World. They play all three, and I see dozens and dozens of "updates" every single day. They must treat it like a part-time job in order to generate the amount of application pollution they do.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    23. Re:No... by Thiez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And lynx. And all adblockers.

    24. Re:No... by ebombme · · Score: 1

      Blizzard actively (some would complain not actively enough) pursues gold farmers and cheaters. In my opinion their suit against the Glider tool proved very effectively that we have very little rights to run what we choose on our own computers in certain circumstances. They won the suit and the TOS was upheld in a court of law.

    25. Re:No... by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      By grasping at the only available straw (the name), they've helped the script get noted by the Slashdotters, and it will be impossible to stop now.

      Are we talking about the same Slashdot here?

      Yes.

      Aren't these the people who love to proclaim how they're too cool to have a Facebook, anytime a related story pops up?

      No.

    26. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > With all of the non-non-evil stuff which Google does
       
      Citation? Apart from a vague "stores lots of data"?
      Others do too, you know...

    27. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile the fad will have moved on to something new and facebook will drop their case as they go out of business.

      Seriously, how many more years does this site have going for it left?

    28. Re:No... by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Hum, this would make IE illegal too!

      IE isn't designed with the intent and for the purpose of altering websites and making them appear different from how they were intended. It (especially IE6) isn't very good at rendering things correctly, but that's due to incompetence, rather than a designed-in intention.

      However, I'm hoping the FB legal team goes with a "he used our trademark in the name of his product" argument. That would set no dangerous new precedents.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    29. Re:No... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      He has another option, which corporations like to use. My wife works for a company that manufactures cheap chain saws, weed eaters, blowers and such stuff. Cheap power tools often break down, or cause accidents. They get sued for their crummy products from time to time. They offer little to no defense, sometimes settling, sometimes ignoring the issue, whatever seems right to them.

      When they figure they've had enough heat, they change names, transfer ownership other members of the families, and other wierd crap. Working at the same plant with the same supervisors, the wife has signed paychecks from at least six different companies in the last 12 years.

      So, this guy can just "give away" the rights to his script and/or software, and allow someone else to be the owner. He may or may not actually retain control, but he has "ceased and desisted" the distribution of that software. Facebook can't demand much more than that. He can change the name of the software, the name of the "owner", the place of business, and anything else he cares to change, as often as he likes, and thumb his nose at Facebook.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    30. Re:No... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      If something is happening on their server (farming) that they dislike, it is their right to block it, get an injunction, or whatever.

      But, with this script, everything is happening on the user's computer, and Facebook has no jurisdiction over that.

      As for TOS - I have little respect for them, anywhere. I do what I want to do, and if someone tries to stop me, I find a way to do what I want anyway. Just because they have lawyers doesn't mean they can tell me what to do.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    31. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. You just explained America to me. I was born here. I've lived here my whole life. But now I finally understand America. The whole freedom of speech thing only applies to saying things people with money like to hear.

    32. Re:No... by ebombme · · Score: 1

      Your post brings to a head exactly what is wrong with what Facebook is trying to do. They are trying to say that even if you do not change anything on the server end, that you STILL don't have a right to choose what is displayed on your computer screen. What is next? Are the going to sue my eyelids when they try to stop them from pumping advertising into my brain??!?!?

    33. Re:No... by English+French+Man · · Score: 1

      Actually, it began with a trademark issue, but the developer renamed graciously the script, previously named Facebook Purity, it's now named Fluff Bunny Purity. Seeing that Facebook wanted the developer to get rid of the plugin, it goes for the "do not modify the way our site looks like" line, which is harder do defend, mainly because it should not be (and probably is not) illegal (meaning there is no clear law to apply here, but the complex state of intellectual property can screw things up in this case. Is the plugin modifying and redistributing some copyright material to the end-user?)

      --
      If I'm wrong, please correct me ; learning is better than being right.
    34. Re:No... by WNight · · Score: 1

      They always sue the party who isn't paying them.

      The trick is to write a bot (like wow-glider that Blizzard freaked out about) in scripts for a disassembler, like ida. In other words, show how it's legal software that's doing this. The "crime", if any, is in the use.

      It's easy for the court to freak out about an executable (a black box, containing demons they're assured) or source code (pages of incantations for summoning said demon) but a simple script of "find value 100 - label as health" commands is close enough to spoken language to probably not appear as magic (and thus, not a DMCA violation).

      It's annoying when WoW (the AOL of gaming) and their minions of idiots fund totalitarian laws/precedents with far wider impact than their little grind-fest.

    35. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't stop him from saying that it works with FaceBook, that's a legitimate use of a Trademark. And since it ONLY works with FaceBook, he should be saying it. And calling it "mysocialnetwork purity" almost implies that it works with myspace instead.

    36. Re:No... by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      depending on the state the developer is sued in/resides in he can file a SLAPP motion. This allows a judge to consider the merit of the case pre-trial and either dismiss or allow the case to go forward. If the case goes forward the fact that the SLAPP was not upheld is not permissible as evidence.

      It's a powerful tool for the little guy and was developed for just this reason. Also, some states allow for a "SLAPP-back" provision thus he may get some income from this.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    37. Re:No... by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Yeah that would be like broadcasters having the right to say what you do with their signal once it was on the airwaves and coming, uninvited, into your own home.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    38. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is why the system needs to change so that the loser has to pay all the costs, including the winners lawyers costs

      this should help eliminate the frivolous suits

    39. Re:No... by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      > But, with this script, everything is happening on the user's computer, and Facebook has no jurisdiction over that.

      Not everything is happening on the users' computers since the script may determine what is or is not requested from the Facebook servers.

      I think the essential difference between this and WoW would be a requirement that the user must actively meet (downloading ads and other cruft) vs. a prohibition against what the user may do (run auto-aim scripts) with their computers in conjunction with the service. A good number of universities contractually require users of private computers to run anti-virus software when connected to the campus network.

      If Facebook is like a publisher, they should have no control over how users retain or discard parts of the bundle (like TiVO). If Facebook is like a retailer, an argument might be that a user stripping out arbitrary content, like paying for an entire newspaper but only taking the front section, leaves the retailer with the burden of disposing of unsalable product at the retailer's expense. Users who do not receive ads or app notifications are in some ways unsalable for Facebook. Based on the almost absolute lack of amputated newspapers being left behind in unattended newspaper boxes, consumers do not appear to believe that its good practice to burden retailers or other customers in that manner.

      Since Facebook is neither strictly a publisher, nor strictly a retailer, considering a broader class might be instructive.

      In general, software and interfaces are designed to permit only actions which are explicitly intended, rather than denying specific actions although denying kinds of actions is common. We've accepted that terms of service should contain restrictions like "use for work-related purposes only, do not use for illegal purposes", but not exhaustive exclusions like "do not use for pornsite1..n, spamming software1..n, botnet control software1..n". This makes sense from the sysadmin perspective and need not be further argued. But as users, we may sometimes enjoy pushing the limits in the TOS and seek exceptions, but we rarely concentrate to change policies despite being afforded the opportunity to do so.

      Generally, then, Facebook's position is rational and reasonable given our societal norms, as is the position to oppose Facebook's actions without seeking to materially harm Facebook.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    40. Re:No... by awyeah · · Score: 1

      I've actually been able to reduce the amount of spam I get from that stuff. You can set your news feed to ignore stuff from individual apps. Problem is you have to do it for all of them... and all the new ones that pop up.

      --
      Why, no, I haven't meta-moderated lately. Thanks for asking!
    41. Re:No... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      SLAPP? Seriously? Where can I get a job for Congress' Department of Acronyms?! I would come up with names like this every day for the rest of my life.

    42. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, if Facebook wins, it will set a precedence. It will mean that potentially, anything that modifies a website from what the website author produces will be illegal.

      Assuming Facebook uses a copyright claim, it failed to protect its copyrighted content by releasing it to the web unencrypted and unprotected (some movie reference creeps into mind) using the standard methods of formulating and communicating the content in the intertubes and therefore have lost their rights to the form and representation of the content from the moment it left their company network. Had they transferred the content under drm by using technique like the flash player, they case could be more solid, heavy and longer loading.
      If Facebook wins, it would endanger advertising and proxy services as well. Bye bye Google and mobile internet (as we know it).

    43. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "anything that modifies a website from what the website author produces will be illegal"

      Given that what the author produces is a bunch of code in markup, styling, and scripting languages, and
      that browsers and other consumers of this information have varying capabilities (and intention) to render
      all features of these languages into the form that is ultimately displayed to the consuming human, this
      would be a rather impracticable stand to take. Would make most web-related software, including all
      browsers, instantly illegal.

    44. Re:No... by raphael75 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      "This means all greasemonkey scripts and AdBlock Plus/other ad blocking technologies as these modify a sites look from what is intended."

      So that means ie should also be illegal. It shows websites differently from what I intend all the time. ;)

    45. Re:No... by IronChef · · Score: 1

      If we insist on keeping a legal system that is so easy to abuse, then we should provide legal defense for the accused just as we do in criminal trials.

      I shudder at the idea of a reform that starts paying for more lawyers, with taxpayer funds, but it may be the lesser evil. A baseless civil case can wreck your life. Why should you not be entitled to a defense?

      I'd rather see the system reformed so that abuses are less possible, but that seems like an impossible dream.

    46. Re:No... by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    47. Re:No... by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      It could also mean that developers in the US are less likely to innovate in these areas for fear of being sued.

      Step outside and it's a whole different world. Actually not really. It's just a different set of pirates running things, most of whom are simply trying to appease the US. Maybe we'll see more anonymous development in free software.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    48. Re:No... by Pebby · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't this make every web browser illegal or subject to scrutiny/some sorts of rules about how it displays pages?

      Would links be illegal because it does not display images?

    49. Re:No... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Actually, almost every "major" browser would be illegal, because they have built-in stuff like:

      * Popup blockers
      * Image blocking (at least Firefox)
      * Javascript disabling

    50. Re:No... by GafferFish · · Score: 1

      Also, if Facebook wins, it will set a precedence. It will mean that potentially, anything that modifies a website from what the website author produces will be illegal. So turning off images or Javascript in your web browser will also be illegal. What about using a web browser other than the one the website intends for you to view it in. Soon everyone in the USA will be forced to use the same version of the same web browser with the same settings! That'll make the web developer's job easier.

    51. Re:No... by tsj5j · · Score: 1

      And this is incredibly ironic. For Facebook, one of the most commonly used tool for viral marketing today, not to realize the possible Streisand effect is foolish to say the least.

    52. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your understanding of precedent is faulty. Precedent only arises from cases in a court of record that are published in an official court reporter. If he settles, it sets no precedent. If it's not a court of record, it sets no precedent. If it is in a court of record, but the decision isn't published it sets no precedent.

    53. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok. So where do I send him money? Fuck these guys.

    54. Re:No... by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      > Apart from a vague "stores lots of data"?

      That's obviously the big part, and it's obviously not vague. OTOH, I don't see how Google would manage to pay for giving me such useful services if it didn't hoard its profiling data on me like gold. Which is why I put up with it.

      > Others do too, you know...

      The others are small fry, still, you know. Especially when talking about me. I intentionally try to concentrate my privacy leakage to Google as much as I can, because I figure it seems to be a better keeper for that data than most of the competing corporations. At least right now.

    55. Re:No... by cbciv · · Score: 1

      [...] the fact that the SLAPP was not upheld is not permissible as evidence.

      I think that you mean "admissible".

    56. Re:No... by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      IANAL /sticks tongue out

      but, yes...

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    57. Re:No... by dpastern · · Score: 1

      Yup. The same happens in Australia, although to a much lesser degree as we're not quite as heavily litigant as our American brothers. The whole court system is broken - there is only legal ability for the rich and powerful, not your average person. The best way to stop this is to make lawyers illegal, and have people represent themselves. It reduces the cost, and makes a much more honest stab at things imho. Lawyers have made a shyte load of money over the past few hundred years, I say feed them to themselves, oops, I mean the sharks!

      Dave

      --
      Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
    58. Re:No... by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      Facebook has lost before they even started..

      The Source is out there for anyone to pick up if he decides withs not worth his time to fight it.... Chrome has Native support for greasemonkey scripts... So if Facebook is gonna try to shutdown these types of engines that give end users power over what and how things get displayed in their browser they will have to force google to disable it.. and really who has more money than google? definitely not facebook

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    59. Re:No... by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      Facebook is barking up the wrong tree... Greasemonkey has nothing to do with Facebook or blocking content.. it just provides a API that allows people to write scripts to do what Facebook does not like.

      This is taking it a bit far.. but its like attacking MS because people use Windows API's pirate software/music/movies ect....

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
  2. EULA by bragr · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If they just stick a clause in the EULA the prohibits people from doing just that, they could stop it. Although I am not sure if they could go after the author, just those who use it. How they would detect that, I'm not sure, but I know there are a few sites that can detect AdBlock.

    1. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can detect AdBlock, couldn't they prevent the page from loading?

    2. Re:EULA by Luke+has+no+name · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree, I don't think they have any legal right to stop the dev from creating a completely user-side tool. The only thing they could do (IMO) is block its functionality for users.

      Facebook is getting more and more annoying. It's unfortunate how much of a deathchoke they have on social networking (I don't know very many people without facebook; it is my main mode of online communication).

      It's known that an IPO is inevitable; if their motives have been in question now, it won't be when public stockholders are involved.

      Time to hop on the next social bandwagon. How hard can it be to host asite with 400,000,000 unique VISITORS a month?

    3. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't know very many people without facebook

      Try hanging out with adults then. I've never had, nor will I ever have a Facebook or Myspace account. I'm not into teen events and gossip so I just don't see the point.

      Besides, I have an actual web site if anyone wants to contact me.

    4. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      To some extent. Ars Technica recently ran a short experiment where content was hidden if it looked like someone was running an ad blocker.

      Note that these detection scripts are generally like 4 lines of javascript that depend on the fact that ad blockers look for urls patterns like "ads/*". If any site actually started seriously doing this, it would be easily worked around and probably turn into an arms race that the site would lose.

    5. Re:EULA by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      One of the nice things compared to google buzz is that you don't get a ton of farmville spam whenever you log in there. You don't get much else either, which some people might view as a down side, but if other sites get more annoying things might pick up over there. You can hide a lot of the spam in Facebook now, but that just seems to make the game developers branch out into similar annoying games.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    6. Re:EULA by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This is actually a pretty easy thing for the sites to prevent. They just haven't thought it through.

      And no, I will not document how a few relatively simple steps could effectively kill all current generations of ad blockers.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    7. Re:EULA by Pieroxy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be honest, greasemonkey is the equivalent of a spam filter. Without it, you're drowned by stupid apps updates you don't give a damn about. And facebook become unusable and utter crap.

      So let them disable whatever and shoot themselves in the foot. I won't drop a tear when that happens.

    8. Re:EULA by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Try hanging out with adults then.

      Quite complicated when you live in different continents.

    9. Re:EULA by Grimbleton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My supervisor at work just asked me the other day if I play Farmville.

    10. Re:EULA by shentino · · Score: 1

      I'd be using google buzz right now if it weren't for their autofollow blunder that forever tainted my contact list.

      If there was a way I could kick everyone without banning them I'd do it and go back.

    11. Re:EULA by 25thCenturyQuaker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I have an actual web site if anyone wants to contact me."

      So, what's the name of that site, mate? Anonymouscowardnumbersixpointeightthreebillion-giveortake.com? Sorry, Captian Luddite, but you're confusing the medium with the content. I'm 50 years old and have prodigiously developed abilities with Google Fu. After over a year of badgering to join Facebook—which I countered with arguments similar to yours, such as:

      • "I've been online and had my own sites and blogs and photosharing galleries for over a dozen years...why can't all these people find me !?"

      —I finally relented. Since doing so about a year ago, I've reconnected with a ton of old friends I couldn't find any other way.

      As a shining example, two of us had an idea to start an ACTUAL website to gather material on musicians & bands we knew from our area, and from days and decades gone by. Despite sending tons of emails, and making tons of phone calls pleading for friends to get on board with the idea, nobody wanted to go to the trouble of contributing to it. I was even offering to send out pre-paid mailers for them to send me stuff to scan and audio/video material to digitize. It was just too much trouble for them

      So, my friend and I started a Facebook group hoping to create a historic record of bands, clubs, & musicians from the Central Pennsylvania area, and in less than 2 months 360+ old friends and acquaintances have found each other again, to share hundreds of photos and stories, and to get back together to jam, or to go see each others' current bands.

      I could also regale you with tales of smaller BBQs, ballgames, golf outings and beer bashes organized and thrown, of old loves rekindled, of new jobs found, of dogs and cats saved from being euthanized, of rare car parts bought & sold, of bands booking money-making tours in markets they would have otherwise never reached, of small group renunion cruises and vacations taken, and many more.

      But apparently, you've explored it all enough to know that Facebook, MySpace and other SocNet sites are just for the pathetic, or the tech—challenged, or the kids...so good luck, and have fun with your decision to dismiss them out—of—hand. In the meantime, there are a whole shtload of us who are having tones of fun, both online and in meatspace, precisely because of them.

      --
      My Human Gets Me Blues.
    12. Re:EULA by jpate · · Score: 4, Funny

      um, there is a continent populated entirely by children?

    13. Re:EULA by deniable · · Score: 1

      As an added benefit, violating a web site's TOS is good for a year in prison.

    14. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was just a test, and the right answer would have been "What's Farmville".

    15. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's Farmville?

    16. Re:EULA by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      he just wanted you to help build his barn

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    17. Re:EULA by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      Yes, mod_rewrite, dynamic resource URIs, and stupid proxy tricks to serve ads out of the same directories as content etc. would still allow load balancing and other technical performance management and scalability, but that's when we all pretend to be mobile or other kinds of browsers which screws up the metrics and hence reduces the value of ad placements.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    18. Re:EULA by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      If they just stick a clause in the EULA the prohibits people from doing just that, they could stop it. Although I am not sure if they could go after the author, just those who use it. How they would detect that, I'm not sure, but I know there are a few sites that can detect AdBlock.

      Firefox extensions can be detected through Javascript, including Greasemonkey. I don't think they would be able to detect specific Greasemonkey script though and the extension detection can be defeated.

      As to the morality of blocking a client with a specific feature set: how many people here block IE from their site ? There are a lot of precedents, you don't need to put it in the EULA. It has always been the webserver's business what code he serves to which clients.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    19. Re:EULA by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Well, yes. It seems the only people that proclaim that facebook is only for children, or only for building up enormous groups of total strangers etc. are the same folks that loudly state they never have and never will use facebook to begin with.

      Meanwhile the rest of us realize that by now facebook has sufficient critical mass that it is in many ways an excellent tool to hook up with people you've lost track of 10 years ago or to maintain contact with folks abroad.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    20. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      problem is, if you ban me from blocking unwanted content then I'll hold you responsible for the content you'll deliver to me. If you don't want the responsibility of the stuff your servers delivers to me, then no free lunch for you. You can't possibly force an agreement onto me forcing me to watch ads. Immagine how cars windshield will be if something like that would be possible.

      You've put your content open and for free on the internet, if you want people to pay for it you build yourself a paywall (this also applies for you news agencies that like the traffic from google and then complain that to get the traffic your content had to be available for everyone on the web) - if you want an agreement that states that I can't block ads, fine, I'll sign it IF it states that you're responsible for any virus, malware, crash and nasty stuff that flash and javascript does these days.

    21. Re:EULA by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      No, he went on a mini-rant after I told him I don't about how he can never find anyone who plays Farmville anymore and how bummed out he gets and so on.

      Then we talked about other Facebook games, games for the Wii and how his dog ate the sensor bar, talked about MMOs a bit (He'd never played one, didn't really "get" them, eh, whatever) and then HIS boss came in the room and we talked about work stuff because lunch was drawing to a close.

    22. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite complicated when you live in different continents.

      Weakest. Excuse. Ever.

      Seriously, I've got immediate family on three continents, and close friends on a fourth. I don't use facebook. I use email, telephone IM and Skype, but not facebook. Any you know what? We communicate just fine.

    23. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah and I'm not interested in any of that or your gang/clique mentality. If someone really cares, they can take the tiny effort to type my name into Google and click on the first web site that appears (your suggestion that the domain name is modeled after a typical Facebook user name is proof of how much your brain has been warped). It's far easier to do that then to sign up for one of those sites, receive their constant spam and have to wade through page after blinking text, animated skull background page, scouring all of the "name9072", "name23897", "name893" accounts for the right person, all while fighting off the STD infected, sexual predator denizens, avoiding lawsuits for blocking ads and having their personal information sold for life because they can't ever delete their account.

      Chances are, if someone is in my past, there is a damned good reason for it. I don't just lose contact with people that I care about like you apparently do.

      Sites like Facebook, Myspace and Twitter are nothing more than gossip and popularity contests. I left all of that behind at school years ago. Nobody cares what you ate for breakfast. Nobody cares that you saw some guy with a broken tail light on your way home. Nobody cares that your toilet got clogged because you took an extra large dump after eating 5lbs of beans.

    24. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can alter the EULA to prohibit the development as easily as they can prohibit it's use. Since he's a user of their service he's bound by their EULA too.

      They make money from Facebook apps, the last thing they want is people coding for their service in a way that doesn't make them money. I don't like this approach to end users, but if it bothered me that much I'd just stop using Facebook, and clearly that's not the case. Yet.

    25. Re:EULA by caluml · · Score: 4, Funny

      Then we talked about other Facebook games, games for the Wii and how his dog ate the sensor bar, talked about MMOs a bit (He'd never played one, didn't really "get" them, eh, whatever) and then HIS boss came in the room and we talked about work stuff because lunch was drawing to a close.

      This is interesting! Do you have a Twitter feed I can subscribe to?

    26. Re:EULA by Canazza · · Score: 1

      I've used facebook before, never again. A friend of mine just moved to Australia and he's using pretty much every social networking tool out there to keep in touch. He's finding Google Wave best for keeping us up to date on big things and for posting images, and Twitter for day-to-day stuff.
      Not only can you keep in touch but you don't have to suffer adverts, no game invites, no throwing sheep at people.

      As a developer however, I'm not against Facebook when it comes to milking a cash cow.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    27. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2nd post!

    28. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yes. It seems the only people that proclaim that crack is only for druggies, or only for building up enormous drug contacts etc. are the same folks that loudly state they never have and never will use drugs to begin with.

      The lesson: You don't need to use something firsthand to know that it is bad, you can infer it from other information. Specifically all of the "friend" whoring and worthless smalltalk that anyone can see from a simple Google search of such sites.

    29. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_10070000/newsid_10072300/10072386.stm

      Link discusses ClearPlay and their way to filter out bad content from the DVDs that are played at the moment, as a result they were sued by American Directors Guild :

      "A judge decided that wasn't the case because no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture was created"

      Could the same apply to this case?

    30. Re:EULA by ztransform · · Score: 1

      You would make a great magician, so desperate to show everyone "how it works" in a vain attempt to gain recognition.

      Trouble is, that trick only works once, your colleagues no longer respect you, and your entertained public no longer have anything interesting to watch or learn from you.

    31. Re:EULA by t0p · · Score: 1

      You obviously know nothing about Facebook, probably because you have never used it. Facebook isn't just for kids. None of my Friends are under 30.

      Go to Facebook and plug a few of your long-lost friends' or relatives' names into the search field. I think you'll find you have a number of friends you use Facebook.

      --
      http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
    32. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, they really don't want to get into a wack-a-mole situation against an army of potential participants. Sure they can serve ads up to look like content served natively, but that's not going to stop someone taking thirty seconds to add a rule to set $('#content div.panel').eq(7).css({'display':'none'}), or whatever. Of course they could then change the page again, but that's soon going to turn into a costly practice.

    33. Re:EULA by Corbets · · Score: 1

      I don't know very many people without facebook

      Try hanging out with adults then. I've never had, nor will I ever have a Facebook or Myspace account. I'm not into teen events and gossip so I just don't see the point.

      Besides, I have an actual web site if anyone wants to contact me.

      Let me guess - don't get contacted much?

    34. Re:EULA by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      Sort of like how the Daily Kos adds a nag alert about how they are supported by ads, and how rude you are by reading the site with ad blockers.

    35. Re:EULA by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      The simplest thing to do is make groups/lists of contacts. "Family"/"Friends"/"Buzztrusted", and so on. From that point on, only make private posts to the selected groups. The others can follow you all they want, they just won't see any updates ever.

      Oh, and don't show your "following/followers" list, since there's no fine tuning there either.

    36. Re:EULA by bmetzler · · Score: 1

      Why don't these users just hit the dropdown next to the feed and click the 'ignore all from this app' button or whatever it's called? It seems to work fine for the rest of us.

    37. Re:EULA by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wow, so meeting people and having a good time you consider a "gang/clique" mentality? That's quite a strange perspective you've developed there from down in your mothers basement.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    38. Re:EULA by Grimbleton · · Score: 2, Funny

      No I just ramble wherever I happen to be at the moment.

    39. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As usual, the "popular" kids ruin it for the rest. They don't care about the negative consequences of their actions, because someone else is going to deal with those. Who cares that the internet is turning into a corporate-controlled crowd-sourcing fest when you can have more than 360 friends and acquaintances?

      Freedom takes a little effort. You're pissing away one of the rare chances of truly non-hierarchical communication for just about nothing in return but getting a list of others who are equally complacent. You're building someone else's walled garden.

    40. Re:EULA by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      If they just stick a clause in the EULA the prohibits people from doing just that, they could stop it. Although I am not sure if they could go after the author, just those who use it. How they would detect that, I'm not sure, but I know there are a few sites that can detect AdBlock.

      Would that make it illegal to view their web site through IE6 or Netscape 1.0? The point is that once something is data on your computer a program's author should not be sued because of personal content filtering or a web browser that is not rendering things faithfully. Facebook has the right to print something, and the viewer should have the right to not view something in its original form if they chose not to. Facebook should work out how to defeat this plug-in if they really want to do away with it, using technical solutions. Until then Facebook has just enacted the Streisand effect, since a whole bunch more people are aware of the tool.

      BTW Even with a EULA, there are limitations to what can legally be stated without invalidating it.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    41. Re:EULA by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 1

      um, there is a continent populated entirely by children?

      Clearly you've never heard of Neverland. Pirates don't count, they belong to no nation :P

    42. Re:EULA by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      It does work, but there are so many useless apps now. Every day when I load my FB page I have a bunch of new apps to hide. It's like 1990 is back and I'm looking at my email inbox. Then the spam filter came along, and the computer does all that filtering for me.

      That's essentially what this is.

    43. Re:EULA by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Facebook and MySpace are annoying, but they're not all like that. (E.g., LiveJournal is a lot nicer.)

      And why should I have to visit your website? What is this, the 1990s? You'd better have an RSS feed that allows me to more conveniently pull the information together.

    44. Re:EULA by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      They can alter the EULA to prohibit the development as easily as they can prohibit it's use. Since he's a user of their service he's bound by their EULA too.

      I didn't realise that EULA's were so magical. All he needs to do then is write an EULA that says Facebook should leave him alone.

      Personally I'm altering my EULA right now, to say that you agree to pay me $100 :)

      (Being a user of a service doesn't make you a slave to whatever a company decides to alter their "EULA" too. Try and have a think what the A stands for, for starters.)

    45. Re:EULA by natehoy · · Score: 1

      I typed "Anonymous Coward" into Google and got a Wiki article on you. Congratulations, sir, I had no idea you were so important! Is the second link yours, as well? "Confessions of an Anonymous Coward"?

      Since you've never used Facebook, I don't really consider you an authoritative source on what is good and bad about it. You're welcome to ignore it. Just remember, that doesn't make you all holy and it won't get you into heaven or anything. I've been relatively happy having it as a communications tool in my toolbox for a couple of years now, so pardon me if I ignore the self-righteous bloviating of an Anonymous Coward who hasn't even tried it.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    46. Re:EULA by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Try hanging out with adults then.

      Last March, 54% of Facebook users were 26 or older (with 30% being 35 or older). I'm friends with my next door neighbor; she and her husband are retirees.

      I've never had, nor will I ever have a Facebook or Myspace account. I'm not into teen events and gossip so I just don't see the point.

      I bet you don't own a TV, either.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    47. Re:EULA by e2d2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I used to run with a real gang. We used Face-Mash. the hot social networking system built around drugs, guns, and alcohol. It brought us all together to enjoy our common bond - beating people close to death, robbing, stealing, etc.

      So yeah, I can see how it could be compared to Facebook.

    48. Re:EULA by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Time to hop on the next social bandwagon

      I never was much one for bandwagons, especially this kind of bandwagon. My sister, who explains how computers work with a shrug and "it's magic" is on it. So are her kids. I wouldn't be surprised if her nine year old grandson was on it. My mom's on it.

      I never had it load in my browser. I tried MySpace years ago at the urging of some young musician friends, and found it wanting. I abandoned the page, and don't even know if it's still there.

      We have slashdot, why would we need FaceBook? We're nerds, not yuppies.

    49. Re:EULA by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      your suggestion that the domain name is modeled after a typical Facebook user name is proof of how much your brain has been warped). It's far easier to do that then to sign up for one of those sites, receive their constant spam and have to wade through page after blinking text, animated skull background page, scouring all of the "name9072", "name23897", "name893" accounts for the right person

      Pot, meet kettle. My Facebook account name is... Kirk Strauser (note the coincidental similarity to my email address listed above?). The Facebook page itself is actually very clean with little on it that doesn't involve navigation or messaging. I'd go so far as to say that if you're OK with GMail's interface, then you should be OK with Facebook.

      Seriously, we get that you don't like social networking. That's fine. To each his own. But you have the oddest strawman justifications for hating the most popular site that I've heard.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    50. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm usually the people in the basements have facebook, those of us that see the sun on a daily basis dont.

    51. Re:EULA by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Ever stop to think maybe he likes it that way?

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    52. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook Goes After Greasemonkey Script Developer

      Facebook Leads To Increase In STDs in Britain

      Facebook Founder Accused of Hacking Into Rivals' Email

      Facebook Patents the News Feed

      Facebook Master Password Was "Chuck Norris"

      Facebook's Zuckerberg Says Forget Privacy

      Escaped Convict Continues To Update Facebook

      Facebook murderer who posed as teenager to lure victim jailed for life

      I know enough.

    53. Re:EULA by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ever stop to think maybe he likes it that way?

      No one is questioning whether or not he should or shouldn't be on Facebook. It's not for some people. Not everything is (for example, while I use Facebook, I just dont' see as much point to Twitter and have never sent a tweet in my life - doesn't mean I degrade those who do use it though).

      The primary concern was over his accusation that if you're on Facebook you should start hanging out with adults - the implication being that adults don't use Facebook. That's absolutely off-base and inaccurate. I'm 28, have good job, and own my own home. I have a Facebook account. All of my friends have Facebook accounts. Virtually every single person I went to school with has a Facebook account. Many of their parents have a Facebook account. Nearly everyone at work has a Facebook account. The 55 year old millionaire that in charge where I work? Facebook account.

      Whether or not you identify with it or not, labeling it as something only children or teens mess with is inaccurate. There's either a problem with your data or your definitions. In reality, rather than saying "Start hanging out with adults", he would been more accurate in saying "I don't like Facebook and here's why . . .", in which case I think the world owes him a resounding "WE DON'T CARE!!!!".

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    54. Re:EULA by hduff · · Score: 2, Funny

      And facebook become unusable and utter crap.

      You're assuming this has not already happened.

      You would be wrong.

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    55. Re:EULA by Ltap · · Score: 1

      Most popular site... Ever heard of Google?

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    56. Re:EULA by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      I'm with you there. I signed up about a year ago (maybe a bit more) and have had several cousins from my dad's side contact me (dad and his siblings had a falling out so we never visited) and this summer I'll be riding through California meeting aunts and uncles as well as cousins and families. I've been exchanging e-mails with my aunt and learning quite a bit about dad and his earlier life. It explains quite a bit about his personality and of course there are lots of things that are puzzling.

      And this is after years of owning my last name as a domain (so it shouldn't have been too hard to find me :) ).

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    57. Re:EULA by hduff · · Score: 1

      Chances are, if someone is in my past, there is a damned good reason for it. I don't just lose contact with people that I care about like you apparently do.

      Sad for you.

      Good friendships will usually survive the years, but many people relocate frequently and you just lose touch.

      I've run into a number of people from my past and it was nice/sad/funny seeing how their lives turned out. Some exchanges were just an update, a few restored the connection.

      As always, it's the InterTubes: YMMV.

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    58. Re:EULA by hduff · · Score: 1

      As usual, the "popular" kids ruin it for the rest.

      And now you can get social diseases from social networking sites.

      http://www.socuteurl.com/twitterbun

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    59. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I typed "natehoy" into Google Image search and found a picture of a scrawny little girl with no breasts and her boyfriend giving a "thumbs up" to the camera. Look at those tight women's jeans! Not very much room in the crotch area, but you wouldn't need it anyways.

      Seriously, with looks like that, you have NO place to talk shit about anyone for any reason whatsoever.

    60. Re:EULA by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      First, ever heard of context? Facebook is the most popular social networking site.

      Second, ever heard of the news? Facebook beat Google two weeks ago.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    61. Re:EULA by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      I, for one, recognize the utility of Facebook. But I think that it's corrupted by its power. It can literally use any business tactic it wants and people won't leave because their friends are on it. And they've come up with some pretty awful ones. Facebook is run by Mark Zuckerberg, a man with fewer scruples than any tech magnate this side of Gates and Jobs.

      The only way to influence this sort of company is by breaking the spell. You may personally benefit from Facebook but you give just as much back to the site as a network effect -- and thus give them the power to bully app developers, to invade users' privacy, to create scummy marketing programs, with no plausible repercussions. Facebook engages in many actions against the taste and interests of most of its users and never suffers for it. It's wrong.

    62. Re:EULA by WNight · · Score: 1

      Crap, you mean if people know that magicians use distraction, physical dexterity, and outright lies (blank rounds, sabotaged handcuffs, "This shuffled and unmarked deck", etc) that it will ruin magic? ehh... What of it?

      Your upset colleagues are just jealous assholes who don't want to share the tricks they were given. If they could come up with their own they'd be happy because the lesser magicians would be gone.

      As for web tricks, it's essentially all in the open - you can't really hide what you're doing, just make the annoyance bar high enough that the other side stops. (There's no way FB can afford the time to implement anti-adblock tech, and test it, well enough to compete with an army of annoyed users. And if they managed it, that's when FB would discover just how low the barrier to entry in their market is...)

    63. Re:EULA by wezeldog · · Score: 1

      Will it fit in the margin?

    64. Re:EULA by WNight · · Score: 1

      Where were you when you developed your knee-jerk habits? Hopefully not in your mom's underwear drawer...

      The gang/clique mentality is not in meeting people, or any of the human activities that facebook claims to have invented, but in the friends-list fixation where people act like elementary-school children concerned with making people swear to be Best-Friends-Forever.

      In a useful social app instead of a friend's list you'd have something closer to GMail - a way to search for anyone you've dealt with and tags to mark people in groups, like "baseball team", "mom's family", etc.

      FB and MySpace are a joke, they-re anti-social sites. The rest of the world saw the easily excitable, the very young, and the chronically needy pick the crappiest walled gardens to brick themselves into. They put you a click away from the last song I heard, the last meal I ate, my comment about how work sucks, and so on, but they wall it off behind an annoying reg-wall and in the end merely keep out anything important from the rest of the world.

    65. Re:EULA by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      I don't think that I disclosed anything that was not already anticipated to occur within 18 months in any competent strategic plan on either side. I could understand you being upset had I posted in public about interleaving.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    66. Re:EULA by WNight · · Score: 1

      I don't block IE... If you can find a way to make it work, be my guest.

      Seriously though, the issue is that they gave you the data. Like chopping ads out of a newpaper, rendering the bits you choose is perfectly legal. Copyright doesn't even come into play until you try to duplicate that newspaper/website. When you're just cutting out bits/compressing it you're working with the copy you were given.

      Of course, what I said is only right, it does not necessarily reflect what a judge will think.

      Anyways, by the very nature of using HTML they're sending the client data to render as it chooses. Facebook will lose, even if they win, and it will be funny.

    67. Re:EULA by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      So you're complaint is with Facebooks use of the word "Friend" then. Pointless.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    68. Re:EULA by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      That's the currently used lame basic anti-blocker practices. Not very good at all if you were interested in stopping ad blockers.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    69. Re:EULA by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      The stuff that everyone knows about or can anticipate will not be ineffective for long, but those in the industry who actually do basic science research have to keep the free-riders at bay, or better yet, to keep goading them sinking more capital into old tech. That's how those who know what they're doing can keep charging extortionate premiums for the next big undeployed things, even though we all know what they will be. Strategic information disclosures (perhaps not unlike this one) and behind the curtain help from some advertisers to some ad block software developers are all part of the game.

      The next on-line advertising paradigm is designed to decrease the social and cognitive distance between content and advertising, to the extent that the response rates in trials so far are being called the next best thing to word of mouth advertising. It ignores the part of the infrastructure to which ad blockers are ttached, but also insidiously takes advantage of the lowered guard of individuals who choose to use ad blockers and think they're effective. Of course, the new tech won't be deployed until we've watched the current players on both sides invest many more millions to deeply screw themselves into the last five percent of the current obsolete and decreasingly effective model.

      In other words, if you're still fighting on either side of ad blockers, you're either not seriously in the game, or have otherwise already lost.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    70. Re:EULA by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Great for you. You know what they say: Different tools for different people.

    71. Re:EULA by caluml · · Score: 1

      I think that should become the new "newsletter" meme.

    72. Re:EULA by WNight · · Score: 1

      No, with the people whose fixation is "friends" instead of reality or functionality. Doesn't matter how good your site is, if you tell people they have more friends they'll think you're the best.

      And how FB has convinced everyone this is new. They've implemented ICQ in a webpage, wow. What innovators.

    73. Re:EULA by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Learn from pre-existing walled gardens and failed projects like Microsoft Passport - let someone else figure out the nitty-gritty of p2p social networking/mashup before working on federation. If you have something better, more open, more relevant, more accessible, then pony up. Google + normal websites just isn't cutting it any more, and hasn't for a while. People don't want to use the Internet to make websites, they want to use it to communicate. You come up with something better than facebook, easier to use, homogenous (to a point), and lets people network with the other 1.2 billion other people on the 'Net.

    74. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the ninjas?

    75. Re:EULA by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      1. Having fun on Facebook doesn't mean you aren't pathetic.

      2. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's great. A whole awful lot of flies feed on manure

      3. If you like it, great. Some of us find it insufferably boring.

      --
      Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
  3. No by Raleel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, you distributed content, we can throw it in the trash if we like

    --
    -- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
    1. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It doesn't even go that far. They merely suggest to your browser that the content be downloaded/displayed. The greasemonkey script just ignores the suggestion.

    2. Re:No by Tanuki64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, you distributed content, we can throw it in the trash if we like

      This is common sense. Not much worth in court.

    3. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had never heard of this before... but now I WANT it, it sounds awesome... thanks for posting the article. My facebook is so cluttered with crap that people post I hardly even both looking at the list anymore.

      It used to be events or "things going on tonight or this week" were posted, and a good way to keep up with large groups of friends... now its cluttered with crap.

      Can somebody post a download link where I can get this?

    4. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's hope you're wrong, because if this is illegal then Adblock sure as hell is.

    5. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.fbpurity.com theres also a fan page here http://fans.fbpurity.com where you can show your support and find out the latest news on releases etc

  4. look what they gone and done by Dayofswords · · Score: 5, Insightful

    here comes the Streisand effect

    --
    Someday we'll hit the human carrying capacity. And the band will just play on.
    1. Re:look what they gone and done by Asmor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. This is officially the first thing that's ever made me want to install Greasemonkey.

    2. Re:look what they gone and done by In+hydraulis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You want another reason?

      TEX THE WORLD

      (Credit to nickruiz (1185947) for bringing this to my attention.)

    3. Re:look what they gone and done by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because they haven't done worse before? Facebook is a company that has a long history of unethical and annoying practices. It is a good tool but I constantly find myself wishing that my friends were on some other site.

      --
      Qxe4
    4. Re:look what they gone and done by geogob · · Score: 1

      True... getting this script that I didn't know existed before asap... then posting about it on Facebook.

    5. Re:look what they gone and done by asamad · · Score: 1

      me 2

    6. Re:look what they gone and done by Seth024 · · Score: 1

      Youtube Autoplay was my reason.

      a simple window.location.href = window.location.href.replace(/&playnext=1/, "&playnext=0"); has solved all my problems

    7. Re:look what they gone and done by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      I'm installing it now. I thought it was a developer tool up until I'd read this story.

      Thanks, Facebook!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:look what they gone and done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never heard of it before, but now I've installed it :)
      Nice and easy on chrome

    9. Re:look what they gone and done by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Just installing it myself now. I've been using "Stylish" but it's only so-so. If this is pissing off Facebook, it can only be a good thing. (signed - a happy Facebook user). :)

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    10. Re:look what they gone and done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I did use it for webgames, but only stuff that makes it easier to use the interface, build ques and other things like that, but at one point I realized I wasn't playing that game, the scripts were, so I removed, I abondoned the game also since everyone used it and without it I get wiped out easily.

    11. Re:look what they gone and done by teknopurge · · Score: 1

      Didn't the founder flat-out steel code/the project from another company? http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/facebook-paid-99m-over-theft-lawsuit/story-e6frg6so-1111118832052

    12. Re:look what they gone and done by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      Just quit Facebook. I did. Find out your friends' email addresses, tell them all yours, and quit the site. Send a note to all of them that you're quitting the site for ethical reasons.

      Facebook's biggest hook to keep people around is their friends. They can get away with any business practice they want because nobody wants to quit on their friends. But you're not quitting on your friends. There are other ways to stay in touch.

    13. Re:look what they gone and done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Friends who refuse to communicate with me via anything but Facebook aren't really my friends. I don't have an account and no amount of begging from "friends" is going to change that.

    14. Re:look what they gone and done by MattBD · · Score: 1

      I use Facebook Ad Remover: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/68361 It works fine on Firefox and Chrome, and does a great job of removing ads on Facebook, which AdBlock seems to miss.

  5. Iggyhopper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? This is bogus. Users that don't like that crap should be able to simply filter it out, they just don't know how so they just download some scripts and voila!

  6. But Facebook lets you block App stories by assassinator42 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can hide all news feed posts from a certain application without using any addons. I don't see why they would be against this. I half-expected the "going after" him in the headline was to offer him a job before reading the summary.

    1. Re:But Facebook lets you block App stories by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, or you can also just use:

      http://lite.facebook.com/

      I don't get why they care if THEY themselves offer so many ways to avoid all that crap.

    2. Re:But Facebook lets you block App stories by NorQue · · Score: 1

      Don't get it either - just click on "Hide" and it's gone. My Options show that I'm currently blocking 10 Apps, that's getting rid of most of the Spam.

    3. Re:But Facebook lets you block App stories by Garble+Snarky · · Score: 1

      What I don't see is why people even use this script in the first place - what functionality does it provide that the site itself doesn't?

    4. Re:But Facebook lets you block App stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 Informative

  7. I would hope not by TikiTDO · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Once it's in your browser, it's just a bunch of well formed data. These days almost any browser has extensions that may inadvertently modify this data, even without getting into specific tools like Greasemonkey.

    If they really feel that strongly about a topic, they could try to obfuscate the data somehow, to make it more difficult to write such an extension. This would not be too hard on their part, though obviously more computationally expensive.

    1. Re:I would hope not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eventually companies will just migrate to using proprietary systems like Flash to display ALL content, and users simply won't have the fine-grained control greasmonkey offers to control how a web page looks on our end.

      this will make me sad.

    2. Re:I would hope not by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Nah. To a certain extent, people *will* shy away from things like a fully Flash interface, due to the accessibility problems it causes.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    3. Re:I would hope not by ztransform · · Score: 1

      This would not be too hard on their part, though obviously more computationally expensive.

      Whoah, Facebook could do the simple things? They demonstrated a complete inability to do something that had been done for decades before - chat! That's right, ladies and gentlemen, Facebook could not even get something so simple as chat working. Must have been those fanciful types so tied into lustful dreams of Erlang instead of commercially-tried-and-tested languages. Or was it just an utter and complete lack of design?

      Facebook is a company that chose to be a natural monopoly. Then abuse that to the full extent possible through a combination of decimation of privacy, incompetent operation, and absent design.

      This would be like handing the power of water distribution to a private firm - sure, you could walk down to the ocean and perform your own desalination techniques, or put a rainwater tank on your roof, but the fact is certain services lend themselves to natural monopolies - and if your country's government was smart (about as likely as Facebook being efficient) it would design a functional and PRIVATE social network for its citizens.

    4. Re:I would hope not by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A fully flash interface doesn't necessarily cause accessibility problems. It is possible to make flash accessible. The problem is, most people don't bother.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:I would hope not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once it's on your monitor, it's just a bunch of well formed data.

  8. Of course not by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course they don't, but it doesn't matter because the developer can't possibly afford to defend himself so he'll comply because it doesn't matter if you're right if you're homeless. I wish judges were a little more liberal with SLAPP summary judgments against litigious corporations.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:Of course not by mysidia · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hm... so perhaps it makes sense to attribute software you write to your worst enemy (instead of you), if the software is likely to be controversial?

      That way it'll be your worst enemy (whose name is on and in the software) that they try to sue, instead of you

    2. Re:Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting Idea... releasing now.

    3. Re:Of course not by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should read how Mr Edelstein dealt with this situation.

    4. Re:Of course not by Kijori · · Score: 1

      I wish judges were a little more liberal with SLAPP summary judgments against litigious corporations.

      As far as I am aware there is no SLAPP protection that would allow a judge to dismiss this out of hand; even the most comprehensive protections only extend to constitutionally-protected activities, which would not cover FB Purity.

      Given the renaming my guess would be that the problem was with the name "FaceBook Purity". This would seem a difficult case to bring, since (subject to the standard "I am not a US lawyer and this is not legal advice" disclaimer) a suit for trademark infringement or passing off would require them to prove actual confusion, i.e. that someone had intended to deal with Facebook but had instead dealt with this chap, under the belief that he was Facebook. In court his counsel is just going to say "you're a well-educated person; are you really telling me that you looked at this page, with a dodgy logo, spelling and grammar mistakes you honestly could not tell that it was the website of some young man and not of a huge multi-national corporation?", the witness is going to say "well I could tell, but I knew it was a rip-off" and the counsel will get the case dismissed. And even if they showed actual confusion - which seems astronomically implausible - they would have to show that there was damage to their trademark, which again seems incredibly unlikely.

      So my judgement would be that while there is no statutory protection for him, if they are actually threatening legal action he should get a consultation with a legal firm offering no-win-no-fee IP representation; given that he is almost certain to win they will take it on and reclaim costs from Facebook if it goes to court.

    5. Re:Of course not by swillden · · Score: 1

      the developer can't possibly afford to defend himself so he'll comply

      I've sent an e-mail to the EFF encouraging them to take up his case if it goes that far, and saying that I'll contribute another $100 if they do.

      This sort of thing is a serious danger to on-line freedom, and everyone who cares about it should chip in to make sure that the fight goes the way we want it to.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:Of course not by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      It's hard for a judge to apply SLAPP liberally when he's dealing with a subject he doesn't understand at all.

      Wait for the kids who grew up online to dominate the courts. Then the legal climate for the Internet will start to become reasonable.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    7. Re:Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish to be beaten half to death...

    8. Re:Of course not by mysidia · · Score: 1

      He should have instead said... "I wish for every person who is my worst enemy to win $15 million right now."

      Then his worst enemy's worst enemy (i.e. Mr Edelstein) would win $30 million right away.

      His second wish should have been... I wish for an IRS tax auditor to show up right away and bill me for $15.2 million, and declare all taxes paid and settled when I pay that.

      Then Mr Edelstein would have to pay $15.2 million.. but his worst enemy would owe double that......

    9. Re:Of course not by mysidia · · Score: 1

      His second wish should have been... I wish for an IRS tax auditor to show up right away and bill me for $15.2 million, and declare all taxes paid and settled when I pay that.

      ER... P.S. I meant $7.49 million for the 2nd wish.. can't be that crule :)

  9. I didn't even know about greasemonkey until today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm going to install it now.

    Thanks for bringing this to script to my attention, Facebook!

  10. It's no problem... by iztehsux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't see how this is any different than running noscript, or redirecting entries in your host file to 127.0.0.1... Even if this does go to court, I doubt Facebook would come out on top. Explaining to someone how browser content can be modified on the fly using GreaseMonkey might be a little tricky. No harm, no foul. Good luck Facebook, you money-hoarding bastards.

    1. Re:It's no problem... by jack2000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      loopback is messy, use 0.0.0.0 instead. No connections to your own host, i actually run a simple http webserver on my machine.

    2. Re:It's no problem... by jitendraharlalka · · Score: 1

      A legal course or anything alike will only give Facebook bad repute (btw, its privacy policy is already under fire which it keeps changing now and then). If Facebook has gotten an impression that only because it has got huge user base it can get evil and control things at user end, let me let Mark Zuckerberg, the countdown begins. Humans are so good at adaptation. They adapted when they switched from Myspace, Orkut to Facebook. They would adapt well to new social media from FB if they decide to.

    3. Re:It's no problem... by Threni · · Score: 1

      I don't understand (yes, I've read the article) what they can sue him for anyway. Breach of contract? No. Theft of services? No. Trademark violation? No. Seems like a clear case of Facebook trying to intimidate him. Anyway, the script is out there now, so what can they possibly hope to achieve?

    4. Re:It's no problem... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Informative

      loopback is messy, use 0.0.0.0 instead. No connections to your own host, i actually run a simple http webserver on my machine.

      Huh? Unless you've configured your webserver to only bind to specific addresses, then 0.0.0.0 is practically the same as loopback.
      Try it yourself - "ssh 0.0.0.0" (or just "ssh 0" - does the same thing with a lot less typing).

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:It's no problem... by fialar · · Score: 1

      Or you could run Adsuck

      Adblocking detectors don't work on it UNLESS the site uses ads generated on one of their own domains or subdomains (which is rare.. the majority of ads are 3rd party). It's brilliant stuff and is faster than Adblock.

    6. Re:It's no problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, 0.0.0.0 is the "any interface" address and will connect to your own host. Using 127.255.255.255 will work fine since it's a broadcast address and any request will just fail immediately.

    7. Re:It's no problem... by julesh · · Score: 1

      Jules@minerva ~
      $ ssh 0.0.0.0
      ssh: connect to host 0.0.0.0 port 22: Cannot assign requested address

      Jules@minerva ~
      $ ssh localhost
      The authenticity of host 'localhost (127.0.0.1)' can't be established.

      I think your network is misconfigured.

    8. Re:It's no problem... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Nope, I think yours is - note how both 0.0.0.0 and 127.0.0.1 act the same.
      You've probably got something firewalled.

      I've been working on various unices for over 20 years and 0.0.0.0 has always worked unless something was broken.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    9. Re:It's no problem... by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

      Use dogbone to kill those adds, and replace images w/ a 1x1 picture, or if you're like me, I use it to load random pron interspersed w/ the normal web pages. I tell my wife that the internet is just so "dirty."

      --
      How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    10. Re:It's no problem... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Nope, I think yours is - note how both 0.0.0.0 and 127.0.0.1 act the same.

      Or I could learn to read better.

      Either you have sshd not bound to INADDR_ANY (0.0.0.0) or you have it firewalled.
      You can check with netstat - try: netstat -an | grep ":22.*LISTEN"
      You will probably see something like:

      127.0.0.1:22 _______ 0.0.0.0:* _______ LISTEN

      instead of the more common:

      0.0.0.0:22 _________ 0.0.0.0:* _______ LISTEN

      In which case you've probably got the ListenAddress directive in the sshd_config file explicitly listing the interfaces for sshd to listen on instead of just the default of INADDDR_ANY.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    11. Re:It's no problem... by julesh · · Score: 1

      Nope, I think yours is - note how both 0.0.0.0 and 127.0.0.1 act the same.

      No, they don't. Attempting to connect to 0.0.0.0 doesn't work because it's *defined* not to work in the socket API:

      The connect function establishes a connection to a specified socket.

      int connect(
          __in SOCKET s,
          __in const struct sockaddr *name,
          __in int namelen
      );

      [...]

      Error codes

      [...]

      WSAEADDRNOTAVAIL - The remote address is not a valid address (such as INADDR_ANY or in6addr_any) .

    12. Re:It's no problem... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      WSAEADDRNOTAVAIL

      LOL - you've been embraced and extended. Can't help you with arbitrary microsoft restrictions.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  11. Thank you Facebook by mukund · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You don't let me export my data directly. You play games threatening to disable my account if I try to export the data by using a 3rd party script. Your employees are able to access my private information easily. I just hate logging into your website these days.

    I'm going to delete my Facebook account. I can hear how my friends are doing by calling them once in a while.

    --
    Banu
    1. Re:Thank you Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm going to delete my Facebook account. I can hear how my friends are doing by calling them once in a while.

      Good luck with that!

    2. Re:Thank you Facebook by mdm42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And you'll find yourself with a shitload of newly free hours in the day in which you can do all sorts of stuff. Write a book. Write some free software. Learn a new language. You'll amaze yourself with just how much you can achieve in just one hour extra a day.

      --
      New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
    3. Re:Thank you Facebook by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      You can't delete your Facebook account unless you contact them with a (good) lawyer. You can only disable it, which only stops the emails. Your account remains accessible to everyone and, of course, every last shred of information about you remains in their database.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    4. Re:Thank you Facebook by cbope · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Whatever you do, don't delete your account. That just gives FB a snapshot of your current profile to keep for all eternity. If you want FB to keep as little data on you as possible, it's really quite simple although it requires patience. Gradually remove all information and apps from your FB profile, in the end leave only the bare minimum that's required to keep the profile alive. Then leave it that way for a while, at least a year or two. Then delete the account.

      FB can't possibly keep backups of every state of your profile and eventually they will be overwriting your older data with your updated and reduced profile footprint. Eventually this means they will have little data on you. Do it gradually, so it does not trip un-known snapshots of your profile which might be saved for longer.

    5. Re:Thank you Facebook by comm2k · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account
      http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16929680703
      Do not login into your account after that for at least 14 days, otherwise it will be re-activated. I do not know if this actually works since I do not have a facebook account. I remember that before this was available facbook would only 'de-activate' your account and you could always come back with all your contacts/infos/photos etc. - but this is supposedly the real deal.

    6. Re:Thank you Facebook by afidel · · Score: 1

      FB can't possibly keep backups of every state of your profile

      If they consider it valuable information of COURSE they can, duh. If Mozy can backup unlimited data for $5/month then obviously valuable business data that takes almost no storage can be backed up indefinitely.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:Thank you Facebook by deniable · · Score: 1

      I gave up and have glanced at Facebook twice since November. You're right about free time.

    8. Re:Thank you Facebook by lena_10326 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Gradually remove all information and apps from your FB profile, in the end leave only the bare minimum that's required to keep the profile alive.

      I remember watching a video of a Facebook developer giving a presentation on their data storage architecture. I can't find the video, but the gist of it was that they use a homegrown flat file structure for archiving data which includes image data. External to the archives is an index which points to offsets into the archive files. New data is appended at the end and deleted data gets dereferenced, so the deleted data still resides inside the archive. The developer even mentioned that it was possible to recover the deleted data and then proceeded to speek a little on the privacy concerns because technically the data persists forever because they don't run jobs to condense the archives. This is non-intuitive to even well informed users.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    9. Re:Thank you Facebook by mukund · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip :)

      --
      Banu
    10. Re:Thank you Facebook by DMiax · · Score: 4, Funny

      And if you can get people off of slashdot too, we'll get humanity on Mars in a couple of weeks as a bonus.

    11. Re:Thank you Facebook by John+Saffran · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who finds this really disturbing? Does the fact that you uploaded the data onto their system give them ownership of it in perpetuity?

      Surely a letter or email requesting deletion of your data should legally require them to delete it. No amount of terms and conditions should be able to override your exclusive ownership of data about you.

      Or maybe I'm just engaging in wishful thinking ..

    12. Re:Thank you Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know how flawed your logic is???

      "FB can't possibly keep backups of every state of your profile"

      Any textual changes to your profile, modifying info, adding status things, comments, etc. are just PLAIN TEXT. If they have no trouble storing all the images on their website, then an extra 1% of harddrive space to keep every single plain text update added to their website is NOT a big deal.

      Most people upload hundreds of pictures before they delete any... So an extra 1% of harddrive space again allows facebook to keep any photo that ever gets deleted.

      You are very much underestimating how cheap harddrives are, and you are also underestimating how little content gets deleted compared to uploaded.

      Data IS what is worth money to facebook. They might remove a reference to the data, but they certainly would never throw it away.

      Mike

    13. Re:Thank you Facebook by thijsh · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you really want to get out of Facebook completely try to commit suicide: http://suicidemachine.org/
      Facebook tried to fight them, so here is some more Streisand effect for you. :)

    14. Re:Thank you Facebook by rah1420 · · Score: 1

      Not true. I deactivated two months ago and just reactivated by logging in.

      Came in just to clean things up and install the FBP script. :)

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    15. Re:Thank you Facebook by digitalsushi · · Score: 1

      FB can't possibly keep backups of every state of your profile

      It's called a database. And yeah, it's really easy.

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    16. Re:Thank you Facebook by paziek · · Score: 5, Informative

      Thats weird. Here in Poland you can ask company/whoever to delete your personal data and they have to comply. And I mean DELETE, not stop displaying. It means no backup, not on paper, not anywhere.
      If you don't comply with such request, you will be forced to stop using ALL your personal data storage, in with case if Facebook had (they do?) some data center in Poland, they couldn't use it anymore, at least not for personal data.

      Seems like a common sense for me, keeping snapshots of personal data even tho that person doesn't want you to? What the shit?

    17. Re:Thank you Facebook by ztransform · · Score: 1

      And you'll find yourself with a shitload of newly free hours in the day in which you can do all sorts of stuff.

      Now if only I could find a way to free myself from slashdot...

    18. Re:Thank you Facebook by inkyblue2 · · Score: 1

      "FB can't possibly keep backups of every state of your profile"

      Wrong, for two reasons: (1) as sites and traffic grow, old data becomes a smaller and smaller slice of the total storage pie, and (2) storage just keeps getting cheaper. Also... just how much space do you thing profile information takes up, anyway? I'm guessing photos and activity logs are the bulk of their storage costs.

    19. Re:Thank you Facebook by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Am I the only one who finds this really disturbing? Does the fact that you
      > uploaded the data onto their system give them ownership of it in perpetuity?

      No one owns data. They do, however own their copy of the data that you gave them (why did you do so if it is secret?) as it is embodied in hardware that they own just as you own your copy of any data about them that you have obtained.

      > No amount of terms and conditions should be able to override your exclusive
      > ownership of data about you.

      I repeat: no one owns data. Why did you reveal your secrets to them without first obtaining their agreement to an NDA? Why do you think that they should be forbidden to keep information that you freely revealed to them when they never agreed to keep it secret or destroy it upon request?

      > Surely a letter or email requesting deletion of your data should legally
      > require them to delete it.

      Sure. Just send them a letter drawing their attention to the NDA clause requiring them to delete the data upon request. What? They signed no NDA? So sad.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    20. Re:Thank you Facebook by SlashBugs · · Score: 1

      Does the fact that you uploaded the data onto their system give them ownership of it in perpetuity?

      IIRC, when I signed up to FB, the Terms and Conditions for explicitly said that they own the rights for anything you upload: pictures, text, video, etc. I think they said it wouldn't be sold to third parties, but they do have the right to keep it forever, show it to other members and use it for any other purpose, including advertising the site.

      If you believe the Consumerist and similar slightly-hysterical sites, the newer T&Cs do give FB the right to sell your data, e.g. selling photos to image banks if FB ever goes bust. I haven't looked at the newer agreement in detail, though, so I can't vouch for this.

    21. Re:Thank you Facebook by swillden · · Score: 1

      No one owns data.

      I wonder how many decades it's going to take before that concept really sinks in to our collective psyche.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    22. Re:Thank you Facebook by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about other people talking about not deleting your account because the last saved version will persist. First, your data isn't important. Second, all data is also copied to your friends' wall and photos anyway. Third, they will keep all versions of data to eternity unless you try flooding data into the system to make them delete you -- which will only result in them sending the lawyers.

      In all, please edit this phrase "going to delete my Facebook account" to past tense and then post a screenshot.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    23. Re:Thank you Facebook by WML+MUNSON · · Score: 1

      Gradually remove all information and apps from your FB profile, in the end leave only the bare minimum that's required to keep the profile alive. Then leave it that way for a while, at least a year or two. Then delete the account.

      I recently spoke to a Facebook developer about this at a Uganda Linux User Group meeting. I asked whether or not they keep revision history for profiles. They don't.

      So, currently, there's no need to wait 2 years. Simply filling your profile with bad data prior to deletion would be sufficient.

    24. Re:Thank you Facebook by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      He will spend all that time playing video games, you know.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    25. Re:Thank you Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://suicidemachine.org/

      Might still work. =)

    26. Re:Thank you Facebook by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      If you actually read their privacy statements you'll find that FaceBook never deletes any data. Ever.

      The best you get is a deleted flag on your data. That may be rolled back during that 14 day period you refer to. After that however they just might not let you toggle to deleted flag off. I assure you the data is never ever deleted and this fact is documented on their own site buried deep in a nest of unintuitive links.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    27. Re:Thank you Facebook by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      On their scale, all data storage requirments cost them pennies per user. Saving every change every user ever makes isn't really a big deal.

      GMail is over 7G at least of storage for free accounts ... do you realize how many 'facebook changes' can be stored in 7G.

      I'd bet a months pay they use more disk space for table indexes than active data for profiles.

      All of that information can be sold to dataminers.

      So what cost them pennies per user can be sold, to multiple organizations for profit.

      For them to delete data or not record changes is like me throwing $100 bills on a fire because it makes my wallet to thick. The cost of the space consumed is insignificant in relation to its value.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    28. Re:Thank you Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you'll find yourself with a shitload of newly free hours in the day in which you can do all sorts of stuff. Write a book. Write some free software. Learn a new language. You'll amaze yourself with just how much you can achieve in just one hour extra a day.

      Either it would free up a lot more time, because I wouldn't know what party or dance club to go to or it would cost me and my friends a lot more time setting up events. Facebook is a tool. It's your choice to use it to improve your social life, instead of replacing it.

    29. Re:Thank you Facebook by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      And you'll find yourself with a shitload of newly free hours in the day

      Uhh... what the fuck. How are you spending *hours* on Facebook every single day??

    30. Re:Thank you Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically Poland outlaws backups.

      By Polish law, this particular change in the "live" copy must be "mirrored" in the backup. That would effectively turn the "backup" into a mirror. Everyone around here knows that mirrors ain't backups.

      Is data hosted in Poland really that vulnerable to malware, corruption, and "accidential" deletion/alteration? This legislated lack of paper trail seems a little dodgy/open to abuse.

    31. Re:Thank you Facebook by MattBD · · Score: 1

      I believe it's Cassandra that they use - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_(database)

  12. AWESOME by trawg · · Score: 1

    Now I know how to get rid of all that shit (short of culling my noob friends).

    Thank you, Streisand effect!

  13. Redundant by Katchu · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Facebook has a new feature to hide output from applications. You can still see friends posts, but don't see the output of Farmville, Mafia Wars, or other "noisy" applications.

    --
    Keep Doing Good.
  14. Re:I didn't even know about greasemonkey until tod by Raxxon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Had GS installed, but hadn't seen this script.

    Thanks EffBee for letting me know about the script that keeps all your spam harvesting shit-ware out of sight.

  15. options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    solving this problem is easy: make them options. all you need to do is call it FB Mod Script or something and then put in options for how you want to manipulate the page. not that difficult to figure out.

  16. No they dont, and they better not threaten the dev by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    even the mention of this story will upset their pr in dev community A LOT. we web developers, contrary to some who are developing for more closed platforms like ipod, do NOT like being herded, goaded, or ordered about. this will have consequences.

  17. What about NoScript? AdBlockers? by rhythmx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can I not telnet to facebook.com on port 80 and make a request by hand? Sorry, but their copyright ends after they distribute a URI over HTTP. What I do with the response is my prerogative. My browser does anything it wants to with your data... even if I'm not using a browser to connect to tcp/80 at the time.

    1. Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should look up the meaning of "copyright". Then maybe you even realise that this whole story has nothing to do with copyrights. And also that copyright doesn't end with giving you a copy of that data.

    2. Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A while back, there was a company that was editing copyrighted material and distributing their edits. I'm too lazy to look it up here on Slashdot, but you could go buy an R-rated movie from them and they would cut out the appropriate naughty bits to make it a G-rated movie which they would send to you. Needless to say, the studios shrieked to high heaven and the courts shut it down.

      So, if I create a webpage and copyright it and you create something that modifies the copyrighted material and distributes it to the user, could we say that you have violated my copyright? With software to rip DVDs and such coming under fire, the courts seem to be saying that, "Yes, you can write your own tool to do it for your own personal use and we can't do anything about it. But if you try to distribute a tool which helps people violate copyright, you're in trouble."

    3. Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers? by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Informative

      No distribution is happening, which means no copyright infringement is taking place.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    4. Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      NO, copyright does not end after distribution over HTTP.

      However, copyright has nothing to do with this. If I buy a book or a newspaper, I am not allowed to copy it and give it to others; but there is nothing preventing me from taking a pair of scissors to it and removing sections I do not want to read. I could tear out every other page and burn it if I wanted to.

      I really fail to see how this is any different, except that I am instructing a piece of software to do it for me.

    5. Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers? by skine · · Score: 1

      The issue with DVDs would likely be breaking encryption.

      For example, it's perfectly legal for one to save backups of their movies for personal use. However, if a DVD is at all encrypted, then its backup must maintain the encryption (such as using blank DVDs or saving to ISO).

    6. Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers? by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the lawyers in the blizzard case.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    7. Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In the case you mentioned, the company was modifying a movie and redistributing the modified version, which is something they aren't allowed to do by copyright law. Further, by distributing a hacked-up version of a movie, they potentially confused the public into believing that it's an incoherent movie, and that's a potential trademark problem.

      If they'd sold a DVD player or attachment that would simply skip specified bits, and provided a list of the "good bits" in those movies, there wouldn't have been a problem.

      In this case, the guy's distributing a tool that allows the end user to filter, and is not modifying the copyrightable material himself. This is analogous to the second case, not the first.

      And, yes, we've had discussions here about copyright violations with ISPs that substitute their own ads in web pages. It sounds like one lawsuit using RIAA-sponsored laws that I'd really cheer for.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      A while back, there was a company that was editing copyrighted material and distributing their edits. I'm too lazy to look it up here on Slashdot, but you could go buy an R-rated movie from them and they would cut out the appropriate naughty bits to make it a G-rated movie which they would send to you. Needless to say, the studios shrieked to high heaven and the courts shut it down.

      In the USA, authors of visual works of art have a moral right to maintain the integrity of their piece, even after it has been sold.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_(copyright_law)
      The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990
      "right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation"

      That's why the first few attempts at editing films and distributing them got smacked down hard.
      The workaround has been to distribute dvd players capable of skipping content based on downloadable filters.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    9. Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with the verdict in the bnetd case, so my point stands. I think that a user's local machine is their own domain, and what they do with the software within is their business alone.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    10. Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Its being distributed to you under an agreement with Facebook. Breaking that agreement could consitute copyright infringement since the license has been broken.

      Not sure how you can get 'no distribution is happening' when you're talking to a content distribution network.

      God, this doesn't even require anything more than common sense to know thats a retarded statement ... and it gets marked informative? Really?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    11. Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      You could not possibly be more wrong.

      Copyright doesn't 'end', eventually it will expire (maybe) and content can be sold or licensed ... but ... by your account when you transfer a copy of Linux to me, the copyright ends and I can do whatever I want if I get it over http.

      Clearly that is not the case.

      Facebook may not authorize you to connect to their webservers with anything other than a specific piece of software. The most certainly can consider access using another application, such as telnet an unauthorized access to the system, whats better is that if you've got a facebook account, you've agreed to these rules and have been made aware of them.

      You are going there as their guest, they do have a fair amount of control over what you are allowed to do with their content, regardless of how much you like it, you can't go into someone elses home and start telling them what to do. The law can, but you can't. This really isn't any different.

      Solution? Don't go into their home if you don't like it. And more importantly, don't agree to go into their home by their rules then tell them to fuck off and do whatever you want anyway.

      What you're doing is basically saying Facebook is a bunch of assholes and I don't like what their doing, but rather than not using their service, I'm just going to be an asshole too!. At least where I grew up, that wasn't considered acceptable behavior.

      Whats not a solution is sitting around trying to figure out ways to force them do what you want, but just admit that the relationship didn't work out and move on to the next party. If they decide they'd rather have you at their party than show the crap that this script blocks then maybe you can come back then.

      Can they sue the maker of some script that screws with their pages? Most certainly, you can sue anyone when you feel wronged, and then someone will have to sit down and figure out which one of you is really wrong and how much so and finally, if something can actually be done about it.

      Will they win? Muh, probably not. Even if they did there aren't going to be 'massive implications!@$!%$!@%' from it. Its not going to suddenly result in every greasemonkey script becoming an outlaw because this is one specific case with a specific situation and the next lawsuit will be different.

      In short ... I see two groups of people/parasites who rely on each other to survive and are completely unwilling to do anything more than bitch and moan to change the situation. You've got the money grubbing facebook doing whatever they can to make a buck off you versus the attention whoring facebook user base doing whatever they can to make sure they get the absolutely most attention possible.

      I could give a shit who wins, Facebook and its users, in my experience are just douche bags who deserve each other.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    12. Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could argue that there is a distribution of a derivative work from the extension to the browser. Both terms (distribution/derivative) are not well defined with digital technology. Check out the World of Warcraft case concerning the bot for an interesting look at creating a derivative work (the modified copy in memory was found to be a derivative). Although this is html and the web was built on a set of understood principles of modification, hence source being freely viewable and modifiable. I do hope we could see this one go forward.

    13. Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you're talking about Clean Flicks - a popular service among Mormons and other conservative Christian types. I couldn't comment on the fate of the company, however the lawsuit [Huntsman v. Soderbergh, 2005] would not have been the cause of Clean Flicks' demise. Before the court could rule on the summary judgment motions put forth by the movie studios, congress passed the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, which exempted technology which limits content of a motion picture at the discretion of the end user. That is, if the technology didn't create a fixed copy of the altered work. Since Clean Flicks only added software that told DVD players to skip certain bits of content - not altering the work directly, it was found to be exempt under the act and the infringement claims were dismissed.

      Copyright doesn't really apply in this instance anyway, since the page you view when signed in to your Facebook account is not a fixed work, and it doesn't originate from Facebook (any information you see on the page originates from the respective users of Facebook). [Even if Facebook compiled the information into your account into a fixed work, they still wouldn't hold the copyright - it would be owned by your friends, groups, and fan pages.] However, even if copyright did apply to this purity script debacle, I would say that Huntsman v. Soderbergh establishes a nice case law that would clear the script writer, since it works in a very similar manner.

      Interesting that you would bring that up.

  18. Re:No they dont, and they better not threaten the by Tanuki64 · · Score: 1

    this will have consequences.

    Yeah, an article in /. nothing more. Face it, on one caring developer come how many sheep who do not care at all?

  19. repthegr916 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would think they would go after ABP before this...

  20. Re:I didn't even know about greasemonkey until tod by The+Altruist · · Score: 0

    Streisand Effect FOR THE WIN!
    Seriously, she should start offering training courses.

  21. Re:No they dont, and they better not threaten the by unity100 · · Score: 0

    /. is not the only one running this article, and this platform wont be the only place this news is heard. i would really refrain from calling web development community 'sheep'. for their actions up to this point has been far from anything sheeple.

  22. I don't use Facebook by OrwellianLurker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have a Facebook account that I signed up with bogus information to check something out once, but I don't remember which email I used to sign up or my password. However, I do happen to have a brother in college who extensively uses Facebook to connect to his campus' "scene." He is not one of those [mean adjective] people who plays stupid Facebook games and spams everyone with them. I think he'll enjoy knowing about this, and I know many of his college friends despise the annoying Facebook games. So, as a result of their attack on this developer who is breaking no laws, I am reading this /. post and my word of this wondrous script will be heard directly, and indirectly, but many Facebook users. Congratulations Facebook, you just shot yourself in the foot to spite your face (that's how it goes right?).

    --
    'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
  23. Basic Functionality by Redlazer · · Score: 1
    It seems pretty moot to me, since you can ignore those annoying applications anyways.

    Thank god for it. Jesus, do people not know about that?

    The end user should always have as much control as possible. Facebook taking control away is lame.

    Everyone who complains about Facebook needs to shut up. It is just another way communicating. in many cases, passively, and people like being lazy. Care about my day? Look me up, bitch.

    It is empowerment, if you look at it the right way. Do people use it this idealistically?

    I wish : /

    --
    Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
  24. lite.facebook.com by hitmark · · Score: 2, Informative

    having lite set as default, and having the switcher link for those times when the feature is not yet ready in lite, helps greatly.

    --
    comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  25. Let us not discuss this here by nikanth · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let us have this discussion in facebook.. why waste slashdot resource for this ;-)

  26. Ahem... by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

    Allow me to answer this with a complex, well-thought out, rational and legalistic response: No.

  27. no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should also go after makers of duck tape while they are at it. amazing how many ads a little piece of tape blocks!

  28. and since people laugh at eulas in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...every other country than the US, they will accomplish what, exactly?

    Any attempts to enforce EULAs would be laughed out of court in the rest of the world. Consumer rights authorities in the EU are currently investigating whether it even is legal to present EULAs to consumers since there's currently a court case pending in Finland where someone was blocked from using a free service because they had filled out bogus info about themselves and the EULA "obliged" users to disclose real info.

    Ps. It would be nice if someone (a Finn?) has more info about that case, I can't come up with search terms that don't result in too many irrelevant hits and I just cannot remember the foreign names well enough.

    1. Re:and since people laugh at eulas in... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      People don't pay any attention to EULAs in the United States, either. Only the companies do. People could hardly care less.

  29. What threat? by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    The link in the Slashdot article links to a blog which links to a Facebook page which links to an ad-heavy web site and a Twitter log. Nowhere is the actual "legal threat" defined.

    If the legal threat is real, post it to Chilling Effects.

    1. Re:What threat? by Little_Professor · · Score: 5, Informative

      They aren't making him remove the script. The summary (and the script's author's site) are misleading.

      This is purely a trademark issue. Initially the guy called his script Facebook Purity, a clear violation of FB's trademark. He changed the name to Fluff Buster Purity but also still markets it as F***B*** Purity, which is again a violation of Facebook's trademark, albeit a little more tenous.

      If he just changes the name to something else there will be no issue. Noone is forcing him to take down his script, he just has to rename it to something that doesn't violate Facebook's trademark. Facebook are being no more evil than the Mozilla corporation who tightly control the Firefox trademark, even though the software itself is open source (hence Iceweasel etc and other silly names for adaptations of the software).

    2. Re:What threat? by Little_Professor · · Score: 1
      The actual post in question:

      Well the corporate bullies have struck again, they are threatening to delete this page and shutdown my website too if their ridiculous demands are not met by 7pm GMT this evening. They demand I remove all references to "FB Purity" and also even more bizarrely "F*** B*** Purity" from both myfan page and my website

      Those demands don't seem so ridiculous to me. Just rename the damn script to something that isn't so close to facebook's trademark, and move on with your life.

    3. Re:What threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He changed the name to Fluff Buster Purity but also still markets it as F***B*** Purity, which is again a violation of Facebook's trademark, albeit a little more tenous.

      I have to strongly disagree. "Fluff Buster" has nothing to do with "Facebook". Saying this was a trademark infringement is pure grade A corporate bullshit.

      Why should that be an infringement? The words are different, they are two words and the only similarity is that it starts with an F and somewhere has a B in it.

      Are they going to sue everybody who somehow uses an F and a B? Even FB as an acronym has a fairly long list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FB

      That's like any of a those trademark abuses by corporations that tried to monopolise colours, individual letters, etc.

      I agree that "Facebook Purity" would be a violation. "Fluff Buster Purity" definitely not. Then again, common sense and reality never prevail against money.

    4. Re:What threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What if he changes it to Fucking Bitches Pussies, is THAT still a violation of "Facebook" trademark?

    5. Re:What threat? by Alinabi · · Score: 2, Funny

      He changed the name to Fluff Buster Purity but also still markets it as F***B*** Purity, which is again a violation of Facebook's trademark, albeit a little more tenous

      Tenuous is the understatement of the century. I am not a lawyer, but I find it hard to believe there is anything in trademark law that grants such broad rights (on any combination of two words with initials F and B). If it does, I guess Microsoft owns My Wiener.

      --
      "You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
    6. Re:What threat? by jackbird · · Score: 1

      How is this trademark infringement any more than calling, say, your Photoshop plugin a "Foo plugin for Photoshop?" or a Windows program "Little_Professor's Tiny Whiteboard for Windows?"

  30. Is it so tough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Click "Hide"
    Click "Hide "

    There. Done.

    The only time I get game spam is when a friend finds a new game. Otherwise, I don't see any of it - Mafia Wars, Vampire Wars, Farmville - all *gasp* hidden.

  31. Wha?! by nilbog · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Holy crap there's a facebook purity greasemonkey script? Thanks for letting me know about it, Facebook. I'm off to install it now!

    --
    or else!
  32. It's already a feature in Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I noticed when one of my friends keept bothering me with Zombiefarm that if you click hide on the person, the option to hide the application or the user is available.

  33. I *knew* there were advantages.. by cheros · · Score: 2, Insightful

    .. to never ever using Facebook. Hurray! :-)

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    1. Re:I *knew* there were advantages.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't use it either but what exactly is your "advantage"?

    2. Re:I *knew* there were advantages.. by cheros · · Score: 1

      Never having to worry about my information being stolen, traded and analysed.

      As for the "stolen" part, Facebook's IP clause (all your IP is yours, but we have unlimited right to copy, use and adapt) is actually identical to Google, the difference being that Google also performs facial recognition on all the images you store (picasa tagging, now outsourced to a locally installed copy of the program near you). Even Facebook doesn't go that far.

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  34. Its your browser... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    On your computer, running an 'app'/'script' on your browser on your computer with your bandwidth.
    Its all local.
    All I can suggest is a firefox web2.0 edition.
    To the web presents a perfect clean firefox with all all options running, to you the user its script ready and never shall the two layers meet ;).
    As for facebook, we the net using population cannot help your profit dreams.
    Unless you build a wall with a password and pay per play entry- your 'experience' is open for all on any browser.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  35. Maybe just me but...... by failedlogic · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I just never bothered signing up for a Facebook account. I'm 30-something. From talking to friends and co-workers that have FB, its either to stay in contact with the BFF (best-friend-forever), because you run a business (or the company you work for) that requires a lot of public exposure to generate money and a reputation, or everyone just asks you do it.

    Even though I'd have quite a few people in my profile, the only advantage would be that I could easily reach people outside of where I live. But there's not a lot of people in that category that I know well enough. There's just way way way too much info that goes into these profiles its too dangerous. It just takes one person who knows someone who knows someone who knows *YOU* to spoil everything. I've heard there's still the option of 'private invite only', but someone will have to convince me why this might be a good idea.

    IMO, the whole thing just feels like all the GFs I've had that want to "talk on the phone" with me or any other guys their dating for 2 hours asking "what are you doing?" - this just seems like a "What are you doing?" for everybody you know and don't know + your GF.

    1. Re:Maybe just me but...... by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      No kidding!

      I can't stand Facebook, though I completely understand its appeal, communities being what they are. But honestly. . , it reminds me of that noxious SIMS game. I can feel my face blister if I'm on it for more than a few minutes per month. It has the amazing ability to reduce complex and magnificent lives down to the tweet/soundbite level of mental activity. That instant messenger feature REALLY pisses me off. I hate seeing awkwardly keyed lines of text coming from people I know, love and respect. It's like trying to talk through a straw. You can't communicate anything of real substance, so why the hell is it even there?

      All the most powerful and amazing people I know barely even maintain computers, let alone Facebook accounts. And it's not for any deliberate reason other than they are simply too busy DOING things to have time to spend on a computer. It'd kind of like asking Han Solo what his favorite flight simulator is.

      But the thing I really don't like about Facebook is that many people have stopped using email. This leaves me pretty much forced to keep an account on that sketchy NSA-funded data vacuum. If it weren't for that, I'd feel a lot less antagonistic toward it.

      -FL

    2. Re:Maybe just me but...... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I'm also 30-something. In those 30 years, my family and friends have spread throughout the country (Ok, well sort of. They just seem to gravitate to the coasts, but the point stands). My old man and uncle back home, my brother and cousins all the way on the other side of the country, my other brother in the next town over, etc.

      It's a good way to keep in touch -- especially since it's managed to seep into the mainstream -- and, when you're dealing with people you've already known all you're life, you don't have to put in all that profile wankery.

  36. zuckerberg is a jew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so he is greedy. what do you expect?

  37. lite.facebook.com by amchugh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does this script give you anything that lite.facebook.com doesn't already?

  38. Can't see the forest for the trees by davmoo · · Score: 1

    Instead of threatening the dude for writing the Greasemonkey script, they should maybe be thinking about why people want to use this script in the first place. If a major portion of your website users find part of your site to be that effing annoying, then fixing that portion of your website to be less annoying is a more important issue than the existence of a Greasemonkey script. Facebook needs to go shopping at the Clue Factory Outlet.

    I also agree with others in this thread who have pointed out the Streisand Effect. I never heard of the script, but you can bet your donkey that I'll be installing it as soon as I get done typing this reply. I like Facebook and all, but a lot of that crap has to go.

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    1. Re:Can't see the forest for the trees by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Instead of threatening the dude for writing the Greasemonkey script

      I don't understand. I thought they were threatening the 'dude' for trademark violation for violating their 'facebook' and 'FB' trademarks?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  39. What's the point of this script? by iJusten · · Score: 5, Informative

    Facebook has inbuilt "ignore this"-feature. Every post has an X on the top-right corner, click it, and you can choose do you want to ignore application or the user who spams your newsfeed (in case you don't want to lose him/her from your friendlist). I did this months ago, and since then I've forgotten that Mafia Wars even exist.

    --
    Chronologically late.
    1. Re:What's the point of this script? by ZxCv · · Score: 5, Informative

      FB Purity blocks entire categories of posts: all application posts, 'x became a fan of y' posts, and others.

      Facebook's built-in hiding is done on a app-by-app and person-by-person basis. So every stupid new app that comes out has to be hidden individually.

      --

      Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
    2. Re:What's the point of this script? by iJusten · · Score: 1

      Thankyou for clarifying :)

      However, there are relatively few programs that spam the news-feeds, and I find that "x became a fan of y"-posts are usually quite useful in later communication with the mentioned person. For this reason I don't see why (1.) the script has been written nor (2.) why Facebook would be interested about script with such a narrow potential user-base, particularly as this doesn't seem to cut into their ad-money.

      --
      Chronologically late.
    3. Re:What's the point of this script? by tebee · · Score: 1
      Well I personally know quite a few people who are getting decidedly p*ssed off with the amount of crap they get on Facebook through their friends playing the online games. Some of them have got to the point of not using it any more. I find the the current signal to noise ratio tends to make me miss interesting things.
      I'm partly to blame myself I used to play Mafia wars myself - until I decided progresswars was more rewarding.......

      Maybe it's time for for Facebook to realize it's the users who matter, without then the site is worth nothing.

      --
      N.B. this user is far too lazy to write a witty and intelligent sig.
    4. Re:What's the point of this script? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can always block those applications. It's quite easy.

    5. Re:What's the point of this script? by Frantactical+Fruke · · Score: 1

      I have a few game addicts in my friend list. Who try every bleeding game they come across. Still, today, after hitting literally hundreds of ignore buttons, my news feed is usually fluff free. Boy, do I feel stupid for not using the greasemonkey script to spare me all that work...

    6. Re:What's the point of this script? by consonant · · Score: 1

      The advantage of this being that these 'preferences' persist within your Facebook account, as opposed to tied to your browser on your computer alone. So you can log-in to FB on a layperson-friend's PC without having to be re-introduced to what a Mafia Wars/Farmville-laden feed looks like.

    7. Re:What's the point of this script? by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      But this script only blocks these categories on the computer where the script is installed. Doesn't really help you if you have the Facebook app on your iPhone or Blackberry, or if you log on from a different machine. The only way to filter that crap out from your account is by clicking the X at the top right corner of the post and hiding all posts from the specific application or person. One could argue that most of the content on Facebook is crap, but some people actually like using it and comments like "I don't have/need Facebook" don't really bring anything to the discussion. Doesn't mean people will stop mentioning it though...

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    8. Re:What's the point of this script? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Facebook wants to be the one that knows what all you "don't want to hear about" so they can sell that info along with the rest about you?

    9. Re:What's the point of this script? by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I got a script to do it after manually hiding several variations of "What kind of flower would X be?" and "Take the color poll!"

    10. Re:What's the point of this script? by DdJ · · Score: 1

      FYI, this isn't the safe way to do things.

      Facebook makes the safe way to do things extremely annoying.

      If you hide/ignore the application, you do not see its output. But that is the only change in the relationship between you and that application. Any information about you that your friends expose to their applications still gets through to it.

      To eliminate that, you have to actually click through to the application itself and click on "block this application". Anything less than that is potentially unsafe. Both Facebook and the app owners hate it when you do that, but that's what you have to do to completely cut yourself off from these apps.

      The real flaw is, I don't want a "default permitted" policy with an explicit blacklist. I want a "default denied" policy with an explicit whitelist. Alas, even using this script doesn't accomplish that, as it only does the "hide" step, not the "block" step (from what I can see). So I fear using this script is actually worse than nothing, because it only prevents me from seeing the stupid apps, which prevents me from discovering new things that I need to explicitly block.

    11. Re:What's the point of this script? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      1) The script was written because:

      a) you're wrong about there being relatively few programs. There are hundreds, if not thousands, and b) just because you personally find a use for "x became a fan of y" posts doesn't mean everyone does.

      2) Can't say. Maybe its like some have claimed and it was just the "facebook purity" name. Or maybe they're dicks.

    12. Re:What's the point of this script? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not good enough. That is like having to manually select every crap advert you ever see and block it one at a time. The point of a central bit of code is that it can pull that list from a community effort and perform updates on it.

  40. Rights ? by ankitasdeveloper · · Score: 1

    once a website is on client's browser, the owner cannot govern any rule. we shld not forget: Web is open, and it's this nature has made it popular.

  41. or Free software fundation take over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FSF could take over his legal cost. And then facebook is fucked, because the publicity combined with the probability that FSF would not drop the issue, would force them to accept and put them in a bad light. The question is could in such a case the FSF try to get the judge facebook to pay for their lawyer cost if facebook lose, which they would do.

    1. Re:or Free software fundation take over by Jesus_666 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually it seems that the case is entirely about him using their trademark in the name of his script (which is why it has been renamed now). The EFF would just shrug and tell him that a) they're within their rights to defent their trademark and b) they actually don't even have much of a choice about it.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    2. Re:or Free software fundation take over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But now that his script is called Fuzzy Bunny Purity, Facebook is still harassing him.

  42. I use this script on Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and it's VERY handy...

    PS. Does slashdot want to put an Opera icon on the top, as clearly Greasemonkey/UserJS is not just for Firefox, it originated in Opera long before there was a Firefox extension.

    1. Re:I use this script on Opera by Zoidbot · · Score: 0, Troll

      Thanks, I wasn't aware Opera could use GreaseMonkey scripts. I have now looked into it, and there LOTS that Opera could do that Firefox needs extensions for (including NoScript, GreaseMonkey and AdBlock+)

      It was lack of GreaseMonkey that was my only reason left not to use Opera permanently, so I am pretty pleased I found this. No more Firefox bloat and seemingly weekly security fixes for me...

  43. Re:I didn't even know about greasemonkey until tod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, the script's impact probably just ten-folded (at least) due to them making a fuss about it.

    Keep using that brain of yours, Facebook!

  44. Re:I didn't even know about greasemonkey until tod by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

    Ditto. Added with thanks.

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
  45. Right idea... by Raptor851 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wrong organization though, this sounds more like a case for the EFF. http://www.eff.org/

    1. Re:Right idea... by delinear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As long as this is about being able to modify the website once it hits the browser, and not about simple trademark infringement (this being /. and it being almost lunch, I don't intend to RTFA :) then I should think the browser developers would also want to back this guy up. It would decimate a lot of plugins, and even functionality such as resizing text, serving your own custom css, disabling javascript/flash/etc might fall within the scope of this, so it has massive implications.

    2. Re:Right idea... by Nerdposeur · · Score: 1

      If it were as broad as "you can't modify our web site - you have to view it as-is", and that were enforced, it would basically destroy the web. After I request a page, it's my choice whether I want my browser to request each of the images in the source file or none of them.

      Besides, how do they know if I have a cache or just don't care to see them? This would be totally impractical to enforce.

      Hopefully it's just as another user has said, "you can't use our trademarked name in the name of your script."

    3. Re:Right idea... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      It would make it 'illegal' to not install every plugin the site requires. I can see it now: Flash, silverlight, PDF reader, ... etc

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    4. Re:Right idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      another great one, Software Freedom Law Center, http://www.softwarefreedom.org/

  46. Is it even needed? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

    Facebook makes it easy to block applications - when a Farmville/Mafia wars post appears in your intray you just say "block this application" and you'll never see it again.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Is it even needed? by dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv · · Score: 1

      but you can never block them all. there are thousands of useless spam apps, new ones every day. i've started just blocking the people that use them, it's easier.

    2. Re:Is it even needed? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess there's always one moron who clicks on every last Facebook app. Usually the same one who forwards every last powerpoint to your email. In that case just block/filter the person.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Is it even needed? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Does the greasemonkey script do that?

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Is it even needed? by zeromorph · · Score: 1

      Well, it does not block that the applications write on your friend's page ;-) It blocks that this appears in your news feed on your page and that is an enormous relief.

      --
      "Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
    5. Re:Is it even needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      wooooosh! well, I hope he was joking. he could not have truly believed that.... no no it was a joke. for sure.

    6. Re:Is it even needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is fine, until the application posts it in the status field in a manner that can't be blocked. Yes, I'm serious; I've seen it happen a couple of times.

    7. Re:Is it even needed? by t0p · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you're using FB Purity correctly? When you see one of those app spam messages on your home page, mouse around to the right of it and a label "Hide" will appear. Click on that and you get the option: hide messages about that app, or hide messages about that Friend. One click later and that particular pita is gone forever.

      I have Friends who play these games, but they're still my friends - mostly real world friends from whom I am seperated by great distance. I don't don't want to block my friends just because they play stupid games in their spare time. God knows, many of them think some of my interests are rather... obscure.

      --
      http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
    8. Re:Is it even needed? by WarlockD · · Score: 1

      Well then, you just need it to block your friends. No friends = No more annoying messages!

      (Was just introduced to the joy of grease monkey too. God I love that plugin.)

    9. Re:Is it even needed? by PriNT2357 · · Score: 1

      That would be me! Back when they first were introduced I started adding as many as I could just to see how many I could get. I stopped somewhere in the neighborhood of 3000. It was more fun when every app loaded on your profile page by default. Talk about a long load time.

    10. Re:Is it even needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook makes it easy to block applications - when a Farmville/Mafia wars post appears in your intray you just say "block this application" and you'll never see it again.

      But that way you have to block each app individually... this script allows you to hide all the apps at once - and other stuff like "This friend is now friends with..." or "This friend joined the group..."

    11. Re:Is it even needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If an update shows up in your friend feed, you just have to hover over the top right corner until 'hide' appears. Click that and it'll give you the option of either hiding the friend or hiding all updates from the application.

      Mind, given that FB let you do that, why are they so bothered about a script that does essentially the same thing?

    12. Re:Is it even needed? by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      ?!?

      I've been labeling Mafia Wars and a number of other things as offensive and I'm still getting such notifications --- is there some other setting I should be using?

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    13. Re:Is it even needed? by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      ?!?

      I've been labeling Mafia Wars and a number of other things as offensive and I'm still getting such notifications --- is there some other setting I should be using?

      William

      Interesting... I just select "Hide this application" and I don't get any more notifications from that application in my feed. (Never occurred to me to mark them "offensive"; maybe that doesn't actually block the application, but just tries to manage the type of post from the specific user?)

      Or, maybe this is related to the fact that my privacy settings are pretty restrictive. I suppose your privacy settings may allow things to slip through that might otherwise be hidden. Alternatively, my friends may simply not broadcast everything to everyone? (Though I did get a lot of Farmville messages before I selected to "hide" them.)

      If you have a large number (such as more than 100) friends on Facebook, these things may become harder to manage than if you have a smaller set of friends.

      Best of luck, in any case.

    14. Re:Is it even needed? by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      That's weird. I'm not using the GreaseMonkey script and I get that same Hide drop down. It hides it for my computer browsers but the Facebook App on the iPhone ignores that setting (so I see updates on the iPhone).

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    15. Re:Is it even needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a terrible Slashdotter. You shouldn't have friends, but if you do, you shouldn't have Facebook, but if you do, you shouldn't have friends on Facebook, but if you do, you shouldn't have friends who play games on Facebook, but if you do, you should block all of them. Then you'd be cool enough for this school.

      Slashdot: where assburgers isn't just a disgusting name for a sandwich, it's a way of life.

    16. Re:Is it even needed? by cynyr · · Score: 1

      But then i have to block every single "make your own quiz" app... the script is a block all by default, which is better IMO. I wouldn't use it if FB had a "block all apps, except [list]"

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    17. Re:Is it even needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that won't block the message updates that applications write on your friends pages.

      And so you just put those friends into their own custom group called "People who Spam" and block that group from posting to your news feed. IF they want to send you a message, they can still post on your wall or send you a message directly. Side bonus, it also stops posting crap on your news feed every time they "like" a post, picture, or some stupid group with a political or moral agenda.

      But that is all completely irrelevant to the actual issue. Which is that the script is violating the Facebook trademark. They don't give a shit about the script itself or what it does, despite what you may have read in the headline or summary & assumed to be true without bothering to verify the source.

  47. Thanks facebook! by chucklebutte · · Score: 0

    for informing me of such a wondrous thing!

  48. What, precisely, are they threatening? by julesh · · Score: 3, Informative

    I see no details in the article. Looking at the developer's site, it seems their actions are:

    - Shutting down the facebook profile associated with the script. This is poor behaviour, but entirely within their rights: it's their web site, if they don't want to support stuff like this it is their choice to do so.
    - Threaten to take legal action to seize control of a domain called "facebookplus.org", which the author claims is entirely unrelated to him.

    So, what's the big fuss about? The former is annoying, but hardly "threatening to close him down"; the second appears to be a case of mistaken identity which will go away if he ignores it. Or is there some other threat I haven't seen?

  49. Re:No they dont, and they better not threaten the by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

    we web developers, contrary to some who are developing for more closed platforms like ipod, do NOT like being herded, goaded, or ordered about. this will have consequences.

    That's deeply ironic if you develop applications for the walled garden that is the Facebook Platform.

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  50. If it is their own trademark then they are quick.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the other hand Facebook support isn't doing shit when you try to contact them. I tried to write email to them several times. You don't even get an answer. I heard by other people that you have to pester them constantly to get any reaction at all. If that's how this company works, then I rather stay away from the page - it's not like it is any innovative anymore.

  51. Missing the point by Alioth · · Score: 3, Informative

    Lots of people here are totally missing the point.

    Facebook isn't trying to stop people from writing scripts that modify the content of the page (get rid of spam), and if it were to go to court, this would not be the subject of the court case. The actual complaint is a trademark violation one for using the term "Facebook", and later, "FB". It also seems their lawyers are unable to do a whois search because they are also demanding he turns over a domain to them that he doesn't actually own.

    However, the "cease and desist" (from the scant information that's actually avaialble if you go to the author's web page) is solely about trademark issues. Nothing about what the script actually does. This may or may not be heavy handed, I don't know - but what I can tell is that it has nothing at all to do with what the script does, merely what it was called.

    1. Re:Missing the point by t0p · · Score: 1

      I can understand that using the word "Facebook" in the script's name can be a trademark violation. But FB? Or F***B***?

      Is Microsoft going to move against Multiple Sclerosis support groups because they use the initials MS?

      The continuation of Facebook's actions makes it look like an attack on the script not the name.

      --
      http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
    2. Re:Missing the point by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Multiple Sclerosis support groups are not in the same business as Microsoft.

      Facebook claim a trademark on Facebook and FB, in relation to social networking. So yes, he is using FB in the very area in which Facebook holds a trademark. It is the sloppy reporting of this that makes it look that Facebook is attacking the script. The way trademarks work is that if Facebook do not and are not seen to protect their trademark, they can lose it - and arguably, using the initials FB (which Facebook have a trademark on in relation to social networking) for a script for social networking is infringing and if Facebook were not to ask him to stop, they could lose the trademark.

    3. Re:Missing the point by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Note that they don't need to succeed in getting him to stop. They just want to be on record as having noticed his use and contacted him about it. What they want to avoid is having some more egregrious offender point to his use and say "He did it and you didn't say a word!" Unfortunately this places him in the position of having to pay a lawyer to write a persuasive explanation of why his usage does not infringe.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I propose using the moniker 'BaseFook'
      Fook 'em. ...Lorenzo

  52. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  53. Re:No they dont, and they better not threaten the by Tanuki64 · · Score: 1

    i would really refrain from calling web development community 'sheep'.

    Minor misunderstanding. I did not mean the web development community in particular, but the facebook users. A dozen disgruntled developers compared to thousands user who do not care at all. Where do you think the money lies? Facebook is far too big now that it needs to care what the developer community thinks. It is even big enough that it does not need to care what a good deal of their customers think.

  54. join the facebook page for Fluff Busting Purity by amn108 · · Score: 1

    Join the Facebook page for Fluff Busting Purity (the script), that will show them:

    http://www.facebook.com/#!/fluffbustingpurity?ref=mf

  55. Easily hide app notifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really dont get why people keep whining about farmville and other app updates. You can easily disable notifications from specific app when you click 'hide' next to the notification. Then you can either hide notifications from that person or from that specific app.
    Also I notice that the longer people are on facebook the less STUPID tests they take, such as 'which transformer suits you best' and junk like that...
    btw, I also use Facebook Fixer, I just love the preview of photo's when you hover them!

    1. Re:Easily hide app notifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can hide the apps individually, but there's no end to all the bullshit you have to hide. It's like using Adblock Plus without a filter set.

  56. Oh Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook users are such a giant crowd of losers. They could be doing much more worthy things, like playing World of Warcraft. :)

  57. the way i see it by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    this is MY computer, i own the goddamn thing, and i can install any software i want and that includes things like greasemonkey facebook purdy if i chose to do so, after all the sleazy advertising crap that went on a few years back i was really grateful for tools like Adblock Plus & NoScript, i don't use social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace & Twitter, if i want to contact my friends i do it via two-way radio or a telephone if i have something more confidential to talk about.

    some of my friends have never owned a computer, computers can be troublesome and annoying so i really dont blame them.

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  58. Streisand Effect by misfit815 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Never heard of this until now. *Definitely* looking into it.

    --
    Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 NLT
  59. Simple Question: by markbark · · Score: 1

    If the greasemonkey script is illegal, wouldn't popup blockers also be a no-no under the same line of thinking?

    1. Re:Simple Question: by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > If the greasemonkey script is illegal...

      It isn't, nor is Facebook claiming that it is. This is entirely about their trademark.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  60. SO FUCKBOOK AND FACEBOOK OF SEX IS LEGAL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but FB Purity isn't. Someone has some fucked up priorities.

    1. Re:SO FUCKBOOK AND FACEBOOK OF SEX IS LEGAL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook is too afraid of the porn industry, they would rather sue some guy living in his mom's basement.

  61. Thanks for the tip! Installing it now! by zizzybaloobah · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd never had known about this script if Facebook had left well enough alone. I'm installing the script now, and encourage everyone else to do the same. I do know how to block FB apps, but am still annoyed by the occasional status update or event invite that includes stuff I don't wanna see. Yippee Skippee! (Don't you just love the Streisand Effect?)

  62. Just more censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is typical of spoiled morons, you know, the kids who got angry because you wouldn't play the game their way and ran crying to get the teacher or their parents. The reality is that desire for something better with the freedom to communicate creates competition and constant improvement. The stagnation that organizations like microcrap and facebook try to shove their idea of how to live down everyone's throat the way the church did during the dark ages always results in disaster.If courts side with stagnation and censorship again it just means we are following the same road to failure that Rome took two thousand years ago. When Julius Caesar tried changing things back and it got him stabbed to death on the floor of the Roman Senate. Once this cultural momentum starts, it takes the fall of the entire culture to end it.

  63. It dosn't matter by Rallias+Ubernerd · · Score: 1

    When I signed up for these games, facebook informed me that they couldn't post things to your wall anymore. They required your email if you wanted to send you updates. I obliged, knowing they would go into a special filter in my Gmail inbox.

  64. Re:No they dont, and they better not threaten the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's exactly what Myspace thought. Wait, who now?

  65. _they themselves_ by mattdm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't get why they care if THEY themselves offer so many ways to avoid all that crap.

    I think your upper-case letters there pretty much answer the question. It's all about control. Facebook has become in fact what AOL and Prodigy and Delphi all imagined they'd be: the walled garden where their users stayed most of the time, only venturing from the home base out into the wide Internet to bring stuff back "home".

    The "lite" offering is good from Facebook's point of view because it keeps in users who might stray otherwise. But a third-party script which messes around inside the garden without their consent or control -- that's a problem.

    1. Re:_they themselves_ by linzeal · · Score: 1

      The type of people who use Facebook all day should be walled in. I support the online Ghettofication of the Internet.

  66. Extrapolate the precedent of this case... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

    I sincerely hope that Facebook does not prevail here. If they do, then the next thing that we'll have to deal with is condom manufacturers getting into trouble due to blocking syphilis. We really don't need that. I hope Facebook's legal department thinks about this and reconsiders.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  67. Distributed Social Network by altp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe its time we start pushing distributed social networking.

    Think "HelloWorld" from years ago, but more modern. HelloWorld was great, just ahead of its time.

    http://www.cooperatingsystems.com/index.htm

    1. Re:Distributed Social Network by cpghost · · Score: 1

      We already have that -- it's just not as popular / convenient for average Joes and Janes: it's called the Web! Everyone can create and operate his/her own website, and link to friends' websites to their hearts desires. With the added benefit of being in complete control of their own little realm and not at the mercy of some corporations that would sell their customers' data every time they feel like it.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  68. Re:EUL by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    They have every right to stop a user from accessing their site, if they detect its use somehow. But a "EUL" doesn't give them the right to "go after" them. If they think it does, then my EULA says they agree to pay me a billion dollars should they do that.

  69. Kill adblockers by leuk_he · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It will be much harder if you realize that the ads are not served by the content creators, but by thirth party servers (like google and yahoo).

    You can fix that, but don't forget that advertisers do some real strange Stuff you really do not want to integegrate that in your reputable website.

    As long as adblockers stay under a certain threshold you do not want to spend the time to block them, you need enhoug time filtering out the ads that get really annoying (popovers YOUR content, sounds, high cpu usage flash content, NSFW stuff).

    facebook could fight content filters, but might loose that technological battle.

    and hey, Fluff Busting Purity only got a letter, i don't see anything beyond that at this moment.

    1. Re:Kill adblockers by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I was actually considering an entirely different process that's relatively easy to implement which I've actually already used on other sites for a different purpose.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  70. FB by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

    And any phrase that includes those letters is infringing?

    FB is just embarassed we will discover their real name is FuBar.

    --
    Reply to That ||
  71. Re:I didn't even know about greasemonkey until tod by back2scool · · Score: 1

    Same here. Already using greasemonkey for craigslist and stumbleupon. It actually makes sites useful, and usable!

  72. Not smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't know about this script, because of Facebook actions, I do now. So... Thanks Facebook for shooting yourself in the foot!

    1. Re:Not smart by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      Yup! :-)

      I'd never heard of fbpurify before, but I have now. Not only did I go right out and install it, I updated my FB status to tell others :-)

      Way to go, Facebook! I think you just hit at least a 7.0 on the Stupidity Richter Scale!

  73. Trademark trap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have called it Deface Book if I were creating such a script. But then, I suppose Deutsche Bahn would claim I was violating their DB trademark. Sigh.

  74. Yet another one who can't tell bitspace from reali by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    If he wanted an action to be only done by a human, he should have added a captcha to the interface. ReCaptcha is always great.
    If he missed that opportunity, then the only thing he can do, is STFU. Big time.

    Seems he did never in his whole life actually use a computer. You know. For its purpose: To automate things!
    Playing with colorful clickables does not make you a computer user. It only makes you an appliance user. That that appliance is software that runs on a computer, is irrelevant. Especially since every phone, washing machine, car, etc, has a small computer running on the inside nowadays.

    That’s why people should not be allowed to make decisions that affect other people’s lives, when they got zero competency on the subject.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  75. don't they need to defend their trademark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now, i'm not a facebook fan per se. It's a tool, blah, blah.

    i'm on greasemonkeys side, but isn't there some kinda law that says if you don't defend or at least persue protecting your trademark you lose it?

  76. no by josepha48 · · Score: 1
    once their html is on my machine it's mine all mine. but who wants all that farmville and other crap anyway.

    I wonder what they think of motoblur which shows all my facebook contacts and just their status and not all that other crap.

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!
    Does slashdot hate my posts?

  77. Too late on both counts by istartedi · · Score: 1

    First, the cat's out of the bag. Somebody else will just come up with a similar script. Second, the aforementioned silly items already make FB worthless for me.

    I never got attached enough to FB to care about installing a script. I went back to the simplicity of Twitter for that kind of thing, and check my FB once every few weeks just to see if anything is really different. Every time I do that, I see page after page of people's horoscopes from yesterday. I sigh and close the window.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  78. Not that simple. by pavon · · Score: 1

    Copyright law grants exclusive rights to:

    • to reproduce the copyrighted work
    • to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work
    • to distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending
    • to perform/display the copyrighted work publicly

    Doing any one of those without permission is copyright infringement, unless fair use allows it. It probably does in this case, but I think that has more to do with the fact that Facebook are distributing the content in a format (HTML/CSS) that was specifically designed to allow different user agents to display information differently.

  79. Re:No they dont, and they better not threaten the by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Too bad you 'web developers' don't understand that it has one particular 'web developer' (Facebook) acting like a douche bag to web users.

    Greasemonkey is a client side extension that allows a user to script the browser to do neat modifications of web pages that douche bags such as yourself (and facebook) create that piss us users off.

    Its an extension that lets us users tell you to take your freedom as a web developer and shove it up your ass because our freedom is more important than whatever retarded thing you're trying to cram down our throats today, regardless of how 'cool' you think the blink tag is, or how 'awesome' the ads you throw at us are, or how 'modern' the retarded noisy CPU hogging flash game is. Greasemonkey lets us give you the finger. You might want to know which group you belong too before you try to jump on the bandwagon.

    I have a sneaking suspecion however that you're definition of being a web developer means you've clicked the view source menu item by the sound of your post and lack of understanding which group you fall into in this case. Next time instead of trying to be all angsty and get your OMG IPOD CLOSED, XBOX SO BIG, EVIL IF NOT GPL!@#!@$!@$ ignorance all out at once, perhaps you should slow down a little, get a clue, and try to form a coherent thought before showing everyone what they acted like when they were 16.

    Finally ...

    Facebook 'dev community' ... seriously ... did you really just say that?

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  80. why would they... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I don't think they should care about this, as the user should be allowed to delete info on their accounts associated through third party softwares if all in all they wish to

  81. Re:No they dont, and they better not threaten the by unity100 · · Score: 1

    a lot of bullshit.

    first, get your shit in order and make sure whom you are angry against first.

    second, all the shit you are using on the net, rangin from any random forum to this very site you are on, are a product of web developers.

    third, there is no separate 'developer' circle for facebook. it is generic web development as in phpbb, joomla, nuke development, so, the developers doing anything for facebook are a subset of the web developers, and some contributors to projects like above.

    fourth, get your shit in order. you have serious identification and anger issues, not to mention not knowing who to thank for all this explosive development of user to user interaction of internet.

  82. A good start... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the Greasemonkey script comes out that blocks everything on FB but chat and messages, I'm there.

  83. It's easy, post a link to the script IN facebook by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    Let everyone know why you use it, and post it. Have your account re-created under a slightly different name, and export your friends list just incase they deactivate your account.

    It's better when you own your domain, cause then you can have infinate emails from which to start accounts..facebook@ yourdomain.com, facebook2@yourdomain.com, facebook2andahalf@yourdomain.com (etc.)

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  84. Re:No... Oh Yes =) by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

    Well facebook have gone after http://www.suicidemachine.com/ which is quite funny. I must say, I am rather disappointed with slashdot being on facebook. Since when did /. need facebook? I say commit social networking suicide =) But that could be the point of /. building up a massive user database and following. Then /. commits suicide.... and facebook cry! hell I will even sign up with a fake account if that is the master plan!

    --
    All cows eat grass!
  85. Nop! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nop!
    Kill Grease monkey and New Monkey will be born

  86. Property rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is Facebooks property for their own webpage, whether or not we want applications posting feeds automatically is completely our choice so they can get screwed