Facebook Responds to EPIC FTC Timeline Complaint

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Responds to EPIC FTC Timeline Complaint

Posted by Unknown on Monday January 9, 2012 @01:44AM from the what-was-this-stranger-doing-ten-years-ago dept.

An anonymous reader writes with a snippet from a ZDNet article: "The Electronic Privacy Information Center is unhappy with the way Facebook launched its new Timeline profile. Last month, the privacy organization complained Facebook went too far because it started rolling out the redesign without asking users first. EPIC then followed up with a (four-page letter (PDF) to the Federal Trade Commission asking it to investigate the new feature to insure that it meets with the terms of a November 29th FTC-Facebook settlement. Facebook denies these claims, saying that the Timeline launch has nothing to do with its users' privacy."

88 of 150 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What it has to do with privacy? by DCTech · 2012-01-09 01:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

As far as I can see, the only change is how user profile is displayed. It's a cosmetic change. There is nothing visible that wasn't visible to begin with. The only change is that events and posts are grouped together based on their dates instead of that flat style that was before. But even then the dates were visible, they just weren't grouped together.
1. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by ThunderBird89 · 2012-01-09 01:53 · Score: 4
  
  And if he does? You just have to be smart with what information you enter, and what you do with it, and there, no risk at all.
  Seriously, there's no real reason to hate on Facebook, at the very least, not this time. As for the users, there's no reason to hate on them at all just because they use Facebook.
  
  --
  Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
2. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by DCTech · 2012-01-09 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yes I do, it's a good service and there really isn't anything that compares. Especially since I have friends all over the world and travel a lot. When traveling and going to new place, it's extremely easy to find restaurants and other small businesses via Facebook. They don't often even have websites, and you wouldn't know about them anyway, but via your friends or other connections you stumble upon them. Google fails in that because not all places have websites and you don't know what to look for to begin with. And it's easy to add new friends you meet while traveling.
3. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by sunr2007 · 2012-01-09 01:55 · Score: 2
  
  one of Facebook's motive is to confuse users as much it can with respect to privacy. Timeline is doing that. for e.g., if u enable timeline any person on FB can see where u are born , what u did in which year n all type of activities. It helps advertisers whom FB is selling your information.
4. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by slthytove · 2012-01-09 01:56 · Score: 2
  
  It's a cosmetic change. There is nothing visible that wasn't visible to begin with.
  Agreed. The backlash after any Facebook redesign is ridiculous. Now we have to complain to the FTC?
5. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by DCTech · 2012-01-09 02:04 · Score: 2
  
  Anyone could see those years and dates to begin with. They were always there. Timeline isn't helping advertisers in any way, nor is FB selling your information to them. That is their valuable asset, why would they be selling it? They run advertising system where you can somewhat target users, they're not selling information. And I've actually run a few ads on Facebook and you can't target that well, Google lets you target much more.
6. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by DCTech · 2012-01-09 02:05 · Score: 2
  
  Except that the last part doesn't happen as user has deleted them.
7. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by OzPeter · 2012-01-09 02:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  So you admit that you use Facebook?
  I also use facebook.
  And I also have 2 Macs and 2 Windows PC's on my desk where I run VMs with everything from W98 to 2008 server as well as a couple of variations of linux. I program in a host of languages doing things from websites to industrial control systems to smart phone apps. I use Yahoo messenger, and on occasion use my 3 hotmail accounts. I'll admit that my ICQ profile is probably long gone, and at one stage I did have an AOL account, but moved on to Earthlink.
  So has your little, puny AC head exploded yet?
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
8. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by DCTech · 2012-01-09 02:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  On the same subject actually, I really wish Slashdot would remove those flickering social buttons on the posts. It's not even the fact that they're there (which is still somewhat ridiculous, but), it's the fact that they flicker as you move mouse. Makes it really hard to concentrate on actually reading the posts.
9. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by iB1 · 2012-01-09 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  So, my evidence here is third hand, as I've never used Facebook, but based on the rantings and ravings of a certain vagina possessing friend
  Most of us call them women...
  HTH
10. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Nursie · 2012-01-09 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  It will, however, make facebook worse.
  Not that this should be a legal issue, but every time they make a change to the interface, it gets worse.
11. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-01-09 02:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I have every reason to hate users of Facebook who enter information about me. I may not be on Facebook, but I can still be tagged in a photo, have my name used in a "Check in" style post, have my details entered as an invitation to join Facebook (thereby linking my email address to me, the person who submitted the invitation, any picture I am tagged in without my knowledge etc).
  
  I'm not paranoid, I just dislike the idea of my life being profiled by a private entity without my consent. I'm well aware that store / loyalty cards, CC companies etc do this; I accept that as part of the terms of service. What do I gain from Facebook?
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
12. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-01-09 02:19 · Score: 2
  
  Seriously, there's no real reason to hate on Facebook [...]. As for the users, there's no reason to hate on them at all just because they use Facebook.
  Oh well, just as there was no reason to hate aol users in the 90ies...
13. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by fahrbot-bot · 2012-01-09 02:25 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Wait. I'm confused. There's privacy on Facebook? When did this happen?
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
14. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Nursie · 2012-01-09 02:26 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Adblock Plus - add a rule to block "http://a.fsdn.com/sd/commentshareicons.png"
  Seems to have fixed it for me, they are most annoying and I can't think of a time I have ever wanted to share someone else's slashdot post on social media sites.
15. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by AvitarX · 2012-01-09 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  It used to get real slow to find posts more than a couple pages off the first wall page (things may have changed in 2 years though).
  But I agree, stuff used to be there. Also, don't you need to install a timeline app, and pick who gets to see a timeline vs your wall?
  I hardly feel it was shoved down users throats.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
16. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 02:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I went above and beyond and just blocked them everywhere.
  #a(href*=facebook.com/sharer) #a(href*=plusone.google.com/_/+1) #a(href*=twitter.com/intent)
  If that causes problems I might restrict them to slashdot.org. But it probably won't.
17. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by postbigbang · 2012-01-09 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  The ghostery plug-in also gives a satisfying smackdown to numerous scripty page warts and barnacles-with-ears.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
18. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Bucc5062 · 2012-01-09 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Can you explian this edit? Are they added somewhere in ad-block plus, some file on the system? I too don't like the social buttons to default to always pop up on my pages.
  
  --
  Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
19. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-01-09 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Advertisers are not clicking through facebook pages. They are using automated tools to scrape them or using facebook's API to get the info. All this information was visible to these tools before. This update levels the playing field by giving a facebook user more info about what is stored on facebook. It is a good thing privacy wise.
20. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by shadowrat · 2012-01-09 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  one of Facebook's motive is to confuse users as much it can with respect to privacy. Timeline is doing that. for e.g., if u enable timeline any person on FB can see where u are born
  you mean people will be able to view what is already public record? oh the horror!
21. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  No, his friend just carries a used vagina in his pocket. It's quite creepy really :(
22. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, they're AdBlock Plus blocking rules. Put them in the Element Hiding Rules section.
  They block <a> tags based on the content of their href attribute. *= means "contains the following string".
  Putting slashdot.org before the # will restrict to this domain (and subdomains of it).
23. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  All of the things you mentioned annoy me too. That's one of the reasons why I have a Facebook account. Since I have an account, I can control the settings. If someone tries to tag me in a picture (and they do!), I get an email with a chance to approve it. I don't approve them, I go delete the tag from the picture. Facebook doesn't know where I live (fake address in a different state). They don't know my phone number. My security settings are pretty locked down and don't allow strangers to message me, etc. If you do this, you are better able to manage what people may post about you on Facebook than you can if you don't even have an account.
24. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-09 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  There's always been privacy on Facebook. Any data that you place on Facebook is made difficult to access for anyone who doesn't pay Facebook.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
25. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by kelemvor4 · 2012-01-09 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone could see those years and dates to begin with. They were always there.
  
  According to the complaint in TFA, that is not quite true.
  
  EPIC described Facebook’s launch by saying the social networking giant is posting “archived user information” so as to make “old posts available under Facebook’s current downgraded privacy settings” all “without user consent.” Furthermore, the group noted “users have just a week to clean up their history before Timeline goes live.”
  So if you do nothing and the feature goes live, information that would have previously been not displayed due to your privacy settings will now be displayed.
26. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by zarthrag · 2012-01-09 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  This should be illegal in the first place. You shouldn't have to opt-in because of a lack of an opt-out.
  
  --
  Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
27. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by luis_a_espinal · 2012-01-09 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  I have every reason to hate users of Facebook who enter information about me. I may not be on Facebook, but I can still be tagged in a photo, have my name used in a "Check in" style post, have my details entered as an invitation to join Facebook (thereby linking my email address to me, the person who submitted the invitation, any picture I am tagged in without my knowledge etc). I'm not paranoid, I just dislike the idea of my life being profiled by a private entity without my consent. I'm well aware that store / loyalty cards, CC companies etc do this; I accept that as part of the terms of service. What do I gain from Facebook?
  I wonder what you will do if a friend posts a picture of you on a non-FB page, like a blog or a non-commercial web page. What are you going to do? Or if a newspaper takes a picture on the street and you are in it. What are you going to do?
  At the very least, if a friend or acquaintance of yours post/tag a pic of you, you can ask them to undo just that. You cannot do that with other venues, at least not easily and without involving legal action.
  I can understand the desire of being a hermit, but to go bananas because a friend (not a random person, but someone you call a friend) tags you on his FB, what's wrong with you? Yes, you have a right to get all pissy, but still, what's wrong with you? You are just building strawmen to be upset at, building up a cause to be upset about and for all the interweebz to see, that's all.
28. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-01-09 03:49 · Score: 2
  
  Ha, good try. Your fake address is one "At $YourName's house for a kewl patray!" check in post + GPS coordinates away from being rendered useless.
  
  See, I used to have a Facebook account. However all I ever ended up doing was confirming the data which was personal by refusing to allow it to be published.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
29. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by luis_a_espinal · 2012-01-09 04:00 · Score: 2
  
  All of the things you mentioned annoy me too. That's one of the reasons why I have a Facebook account. Since I have an account, I can control the settings. If someone tries to tag me in a picture (and they do!), I get an email with a chance to approve it. I don't approve them, I go delete the tag from the picture. Facebook doesn't know where I live (fake address in a different state). They don't know my phone number. My security settings are pretty locked down and don't allow strangers to message me, etc. If you do this, you are better able to manage what people may post about you on Facebook than you can if you don't even have an account.
  ^^^ THIS.
30. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-01-09 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  I don't want to be hermit. Go back and redo your reading comprehension classes from grade / primary school. I said I don't want a private company, from which I require no service and gain no remuneration, to profit from my personal data. That is not an alien concept, one quite sufficiently backed up by the widespread concern of identity theft, for one example.
  
  To me, the costs out-weigh the benefits. This is basic logic.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
31. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by SomePgmr · 2012-01-09 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not aware of Facebook selling my information, though I know they use it to target ads. I'd be somewhat interested to know if they are, though I don't share much about myself that isn't public knowledge.
  
  That said, more than once I've had to ask some acquaintances to take down photos of me. I just don't love the idea of there being photos of me all red-faced inebriated being posted on the internet.
  
  When you're goofing around with friends somewhere, that's one thing. Sharing the photographic evidence of that with hundreds or thousands of people you don't even know... well that's unnecessary. I don't want to feel like I have to be careful about what I say or do when I'm tying one on with friends (on the rare occasions we do anymore).
32. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by AthanasiusKircher · 2012-01-09 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  This particular change doesn't seem to significantly change privacy, but...
  
  You just have to be smart with what information you enter, and what you do with it, and there, no risk at all.
  No "risk" of what, exactly?
  The studies on what you can gather from Facebook data are shocking. Simply based on who you are friends with, researchers have shown they can accurately guess whether you're gay, where your hometown is, what your approximately birthdate is, etc., even if you don't make those facts available on your profile. With an extrapolated hometown and approximate birthdate, they can pretty accurately figure out the first five digits of your Social Security number (something like 30% of the time). If someone had a large sample of data, they could probably predict the other digits as well.
  With face recognition software, someone could snap a picture of you and get to a probable SS# and other personal details in a matter of seconds.
  Granted, this doesn't work all the time. But even if your profile is empty, facts about your friends may allow someone to predict a lot of stuff about you. That's the power of statistics and aggregate data.
33. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by DCTech · 2012-01-09 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but people might talk about you, or show pictures of you, in real life too. You won't even know about it, and you can't really opt-out of that either. Or you can if you don't deal with other people at all. But then you solve your issue with Facebook at the same time.
34. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by SomePgmr · 2012-01-09 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  When your mom mentions you on the phone or shows someone a picture, the likely 3rd party exposure of that mention or photo is 1 or 2. On facebook, it's the number of tagged individuals, + 1, times the number of friends each of those people has (let's call it avg 200). So 4 people in one photo, posted by a fifth, is 1,000+ individuals in one, nonchalant post. Often more.
  
  Short of robbing a bank and ending up on the news, you didn't usually have to think about that kind of exposure before facebook.
35. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by luis_a_espinal · 2012-01-09 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  I don't want to be hermit. Go back and redo your reading comprehension classes from grade / primary school. I said I don't want a private company, from which I require no service and gain no remuneration, to profit from my personal data. That is not an alien concept, one quite sufficiently backed up by the widespread concern of identity theft, for one example. To me, the costs out-weigh the benefits. This is basic logic.
  Yes, and as you tell me I lack reading comprehension, I remind you of the questions I posted that still remained unanswered.
  
  I wonder what you will do if a friend posts a picture of you on a non-FB page, like a blog or a non-commercial web page. What are you going to do? Or if a newspaper takes a picture on the street and you are in it. What are you going to do?
  Yes, I get you. Still, what are you going to do about it? Hate facebook users as you said in the post of yours that I first replied? That's just an asinine response, and that is my point of contention. What's the point of being so aware of privacy concerns if the response you produce not conductive for what you desire? If you are going to be (or claim to be) logical, be all the way.
36. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Man+Eating+Duck · 2012-01-09 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  The ghostery plug-in also gives a satisfying smackdown to numerous scripty page warts and barnacles-with-ears.
  Seconded. It's currently blocking two trackers and three social network plugins (which are probably trackers as well) on Slashdot. It will also block many third-party discussion plugins like Facebook comments under articles at online newspapers, which may or may not be regarded as a benefit according to your view. I personally find that discussions under news articles are seldom constructive. Before some smartass jokes about me reading Slashdot comments, that's a different case entirely :)
  
  --
  Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
37. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Ihmhi · 2012-01-09 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  If we're getting Slashdot-related wishes granted, I'd prefer they spend some time making Slashcode less of a massive clusterfuck. Slashdot is hands down the slowest, clunkiest, and least user-friendly website that I use on a daily basis.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
38. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by Brian+Feldman · 2012-01-09 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  So what you're saying is that Social Security Numbers should not be treated as a confidential security token, right? Because you can already restrict arbitrary, unknown people from reading your friends list or anything else in your profile by setting the appropriate permissions, and you haven't really mentioned anything else.
  
  --
  Brian Fundakowski Feldman
39. Re:What it has to do with privacy? by ThunderBird89 · 2012-01-09 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  Just because one uses/used AOL, there was no reason to hate them. That's stereotyping, just like if I said you're an overweight savant with glasses five centimeters thick, who live in their parents' converted basement and owns six hundred Star Wars and Star Trek action figures, just because you commented on Slashdot. Simply not true (I think). Even if it happened to be true in your case, it certainly isn't in mine, so the stereotype is already broken.
  
  --
  Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
Not a Facebook fan, but.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 01:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm not a Facebook fan at all, but if anything it appears to me that the new timeline and accompanying activity view make it easer to hide, delete and change the audience of individual items.
Oh NOES!!!! by Vegemeister · 2012-01-09 01:51 · Score: 1, Redundant

Facebook has changed its page layout again! Whatever shall we do?1!?!?!1/
Just a new, condensed view by buchner.johannes · 2012-01-09 01:52 · Score: 1

It just makes you even more aware/scared of all the things Facebook has on you. Which is good.
Aside from the privacy-concerns of giving away so much information at once it is a really nice visualization feature.

--
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
As a programmer... by Pionar · 2012-01-09 01:53 · Score: 4, Funny

The first thing I noticed in TFS was the unmatched parentheses.
1. Re:As a programmer... by troon · 2012-01-09 02:09 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'm still waiting for the summary to finish...
  
  --
  Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
2. Re:As a programmer... by heathen_01 · 2012-01-09 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  As a programmer I ignore trivial problems that the tools I use catch for me.
3. Re:As a programmer... by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 02:41 · Score: 2
  
  That's what you get for reading TFS.
  I think I read the first sentence and the last sentence and completely ignored what came in between them.
Facebook? by bytesex · 2012-01-09 02:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Facebook is not critical infrastructure (or even near it); users willingly and knowlingly signed up for what amounts to a toy. A toy with commercial motives.

--
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
1. Re:Facebook? by Tharsman · 2012-01-09 02:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Unfortunately, the way they work, they already have a profile on you even if you dont sign up on their serivce. So many websites add that "useful" Like button, that servers as a tracking trojan, that it's impossible to navigate without being caught and profiled by Facebook. They keep growing a profile on you even if you dont have an account. They'll just tie everything up the day you actually make an account to "check some friend's pictures" or something.
2. Re:Facebook? by Max+Romantschuk · 2012-01-09 02:27 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Facebook is no mere toy. Used properly it is an efficient communications platform. Not perfect by any means, but denying Facebook's strength as a communications platform is really quite ignorant.
  
  --
  .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
3. Re:Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  .....ha ha ha ha ha ha
4. Re:Facebook? by http · 2012-01-09 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  What communication feature does Facebook have that email/IM does not?
  
  --
  If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
  3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
5. Re:Facebook? by Max+Romantschuk · 2012-01-09 05:10 · Score: 2
  
  What communication feature does Facebook have that email/IM does not?
  Tehnically: Nothing.
  In practice: I don't have to hunt for email addresses or tell my technically clueless friends how to use IM brand X. I just tell them that well talk/message on Facebook and from their perspective, things Just Work.
  
  --
  .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
Presentation Change Only by MacGyver2210 · 2012-01-09 02:10 · Score: 1

Facebook is ok on this one, to an extent.
The only thing that I can tell the timeline does is make information on someone's profile page absolutely impossible to find. That should IMPROVE the users' security if nothing else.

--
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
You can always change the channel... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 02:35 · Score: 1

This "free" service has a cost and that cost is the value that the company can extract from your information by selling it to whoever is willing to pay for it.
Four-five years ago, the notion that FB was collecting and selling private info was dismissed as conspiracy theory. Today, it causes outrage.
The remedy, as always is to stop using it. Judging by the ever increasing number of users, that's not happening, so the privacy concerns only bother us enough to register the token complaint but not enough to stop using the service. When the balance tilts the other way, we'll just change the channel.
Re:Remove social buttons from comments? by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 02:44 · Score: 4, Informative

Can, and already did. You can too.
Block them everywhere:
#a(href*=facebook.com/sharer) #a(href*=plusone.google.com/_/+1) #a(href*=twitter.com/intent)
or just on Slashdot:
slashdot.org#a(href*=facebook.com/sharer) slashdot.org#a(href*=plusone.google.com/_/+1) slashdot.org#a(href*=twitter.com/intent)
Bonus filters, no additional charge:
#a(href*=goat.) #a(href*=goatse.) slashdot.org#a(href*=/boredgeek) slashdot.org#a(href*=/geekatwork) slashdot.org#a(href*=/goo.gl/) slashdot.org#a(href*=/is.gd/)
ENSURE by Draque · 2012-01-09 03:04 · Score: 2

There's a reason that there are two different words, one meaning "a fiscal investment against mishap" and the other meaning "to make certain."
1. Re:ENSURE by mcgrew · 2012-01-09 06:31 · Score: 2
  
  Webster's Dictionary disagrees.
  Definition of INSURE
  transitive verb
  1: to provide or obtain insurance on or for
  2: to make certain especially by taking necessary measures and precautions
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
without asking users first by Lindan9 · 2012-01-09 03:33 · Score: 1

this free service I use keeps doing things with out asking me first.
Hanlon's razor by luis_a_espinal · 2012-01-09 03:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

You might want to re-think who you want as your friends. If your "friends" are giving your personal information away to an entity who then sells it downstream to anyone who wants it, including most likely the big brother TLA agencies, I'd suggest those people are not actually friends.
Or maybe they are friends, but are not educated in the implications. May I suggest you familiarize yourself with Hanlon's razor before judging you don't know and their worthiness for friendship? I don't know, something to do with social skills, rational thought, humanism, or something.

My friends, somehow, do not do this to me. You need a better class of friends.
Wow, just wow.
1. Re:Hanlon's razor by luis_a_espinal · 2012-01-09 05:00 · Score: 2
  
  Wow, just wow.
  What, exactly, is wrong with expecting your so called "friends" to not betray your trust?
  Again, wow, just wow. Ignorance of what you desire is not an indication of betrayal. As I said before, Hanlon's razor, which what separates reasonable expectations and stupidity. It is stupid to take actions carried out of ignorance/innocence and attribute malice or betrayal connotations to it. Yes, it is stupid, regardless of how you want to rationalize it.
My question by HideyoshiJP · 2012-01-09 04:16 · Score: 1

I wonder who Facebook isn't paying? Not to troll too much, but the government has been pretty corporatist lately. I suggest to Facebook to get some better paid lobbyists. Yes, I'm terribly cynical.
Like button ? facebook what's that ? by aepervius · 2012-01-09 04:49 · Score: 1

host file : facebook.com 127.0.0.1 etc...

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Re:Block EVERYWHERE 4 any webbound app by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 04:50 · Score: 1

I actually use Facebook. Your custom HOSTS file would make Facebook simply not work.
Re:Block EVERYWHERE 4 any webbound app by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 04:53 · Score: 1

Oh, and by the way, fsdn.com is Slashdot, not Facebook. You're thinking of fbcdn.com.
Re:Odd: I C Facebook w/ a.fsdn.com HOST blocked! by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 05:53 · Score: 1

No, never mind, this was about Facebook and I (strangely) assumed you were talking about Facebook.
I'd like to know how Slashdot looks without the CSS from a.fsdn.com. My guess is, it looks like shit. But I don't suppose that bothers you. Personally, I like the AJAX-y goodness that is Slashdot 2.0. If you like bludgeoning the internet into barely-working crap before you read it, that's your business.
Re:Got a.fsdn.com from Nursie' post by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:00 · Score: 1

Nursie said to block a very specific URL, not an entire subdomain. You and your hammer are unwelcome here. Not every problem is a nail. You can't just bash an entire subdomain into nonexistence because you don't like ONE PICTURE on it.
A simple solution to this merry-go-round by JasonBee · 2012-01-09 06:00 · Score: 1

Give FB users the option of paying 1 dollar per month (okay...99 cents) for the service. Offer premium options.
Lord know they have plenty of well paid staff on board to build the option.
Roll experimental services (that annoy people) out to all non-paying members, explain that they can avoid all such issues by paying the nominal fee. The 12.00 per year will give you some form of SLA and a requirement by FB to conform to some other norm. Paying clients will appreciate the extra voice they have, because they are paying customers.
if FB fails to comply, they've set the paid service bar high enough that other services will start charging, making other options viable.
If you pay for your data, you can also truly "own" it, and likely pay for the option to dump it all and move on.
Oh, and FB could well raise another 100-200 million a year this way, which gives a potential IPO some heft.
I'm paying decent monthly fees to several services now. I prefer to pay for my social networks now that I've experienced the underbelly of free service SLAs.
Re:You *MAY* wish 2 read _0xd0ad's post... by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:05 · Score: 1

You *MAY* wish 2 read _0xd0ad's post
Read it? I wrote it.

Apparently, it's really -> fbcdn.com to 'block' (or not) from this poster _0xd0ad here
Blocking fbcdn.com will make Facebook not work. I did not say you should block it. Unless you can block it on everything except Facebook, so that Facebook will still work. But your HOSTS file can't do that.
Re:Remove social buttons from comments? by phorm · 2012-01-09 06:06 · Score: 1

Where are you adding these entries?
Re:Checked my HOSTS: fbcdn.com != blocked by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:09 · Score: 1

No, Nursie was correct: if you AdBlock that URL (not the entire a.fsdn.com subdomain), the annoying icons will be blocked on Slashdot.
See here for my AdBlock rules that block annoying Facebook/Google+/Twitter integration everywhere (not just on Slashdot).
Re:Remove social buttons from comments? by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:12 · Score: 1

Firefox, AdBlock Plus filter rules (Ctrl-Shift-F). You should be able to copy them to the clipboard and add them to your filter rules just by hitting Ctrl-V.
Makes life simple by Fuzzums · 2012-01-09 06:13 · Score: 1

It's a lot easier to see if you left any old messages undeleted.
Of course fb doesn't remove these messages. It just sets visibility = false and never forgets...

--
Privacy is terrorism.
Re:I referred 2 Nursie's post's all (what 2 block) by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:20 · Score: 1

Looks fine, & LOADS A HELL OF A LOT FASTER TOO & safe(r) also!
LOL, no, I just tried it out of curiosity and it does indeed look like utter crap if you HOSTS-block the a.fsdn.com domain.
If anyone is curious as to what it looks like, and doesn't want to muck with their HOSTS file, just go to View -> Page Style -> No Style. Then when you've had enough of the unstyled HTML vomit, go back and select Basic Page Style to fix it.
Re:I don't block fbcdn.com in HOSTS by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:34 · Score: 1

The ONLY time I have "issues" with facebook pages, is this (in my router rules for security)
Of course you will have issues with Facebook pages if you set your router to block cookies. Most of Facebook requires you to be logged in. Logging in requires enabling cookies.
Did you really fail to realize that most of Facebook won't work if you block cookies? You seemed like a halfway intelligent guy until that.

Yup, got ya... I was just trying to get folks to "watch out" for what YOU said (fbcdn.com) vs. what NURSIE said (a.fsdn.com)
Oh please. Do you really expect anyone to believe that?
Blocking the URL that Nursie said to block will prevent the annoying image from loading. Blocking the <a> tags by their href attribute (as I suggested doing here) will hide the entire <a> element (including the annoying image inside it).
There's more than one way to skin a cat when you're not just nuking entire subdomains via HOSTS.
Re:A Challenge 2U (hosts vs. adblock &/or DNS by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:37 · Score: 1

I know that, but... When YOU or Nursie post the correct information between you? Then, I make appropriate statements
Either one of our filter rules would have worked just fine, thanks very much. Neither of us was "wrong", and we didn't disagree in anything except giving two different ways to do the same thing.
And you've got to be kidding if you think I want to read any of your irrelevant linked pages.
Rest those tired caps by bjourne · 2012-01-09 06:52 · Score: 1

Hosts is neither an acronym nor an abbrevation.

--
Football Odds
1. Re:Rest those tired caps by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Tell that to APK, not me.
  Anyway, FAT32 is case-insensitive. It doesn't care, and neither do I.
2. Re:Rest those tired caps by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and before you say anything, so is NTFS.
Re:I unblock cookies in router, same shit by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 06:55 · Score: 1

I'll "read on" as soon as you have figured out for sure which of the options on your router was raping Facebook.
I say it's cookies.
Facebook doesn't even use Java, by the way.
Re:I block a.fsdn.com one Nursie said (not 1 U sai by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 07:05 · Score: 1

I don't block the host-domain you noted ... I do BLOCK OUT a.fsdn.com
So which is it? You don't block it or you do?

I see no "issues" with the page display (it's faster if anything & quite possibly more secure)
And it looks like unstyled HTML vomit, but like I said, that probably wouldn't bother you.
Re:You're restricted to 1 browser/app by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 07:23 · Score: 1

You're restricted to 1 browser/app
I only use one browser. Works for me.

NOT "irrelevant" @ all - That post of mine?
No offense, but you posted a TON of stuff. That post of yours was huge, and I'm not reading the entire thing, not even skimming. Much less clicking any of the links.

Plus, face it: ADBLOCK "ain't what it used to be", per this /. article no less:
Adblock Plus Developers To Allow 'Acceptable' Ads - Slashdot
My AdBlock works perfectly well. I have that option turned off.
Re:Come on man: READ - I block a.fsdn.com (not you by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 07:31 · Score: 1

I block what Nursie said (a.fsdn.com)
HOWEVER - NOT what you wrote (fbcdn.com)
Good for you. Personally, I block BOTH of them (actually, those 2 plus 3 more: facebook.com, facebook.net, and fbcdn.net), with AdBlock Plus:
||facebook.com^$third-party,domain=~facebook.net|~fbcdn.com|~fbcdn.net
||facebook.net^$third-party,domain=~facebook.com|~fbcdn.com|~fbcdn.net
||fbcdn.com^$third-party,domain=~facebook.com|~facebook.net|~fbcdn.net
||fbcdn.net^$third-party,domain=~facebook.com|~facebook.net|~fbcdn.com
||fsdn.com^$third-party,domain=~slashdot.org
And since they are third-party filter rules with exception domains written in, both Facebook and Slashdot work just fine. I can't do that with a custom hosts file. AdBlock Plus is the only thing I'm aware of that lets me do that level of customization, as simply as just writing an easy-to-understand filter.
Re:Wish I COULD use only 1 browser by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 07:46 · Score: 1

I have to test on ALL major browsers (read IE9 (mostly from IE, it's current), Opera, FireFox (Waterfox here), & yes even Safari + others too).
Quite frankly, if you "test" on browsers while blocking ads, you're not really "testing". The ads could break the page and you'd never know it.

In any event, I *think* you & I have "smoothed out" our "minor differences" (just "crossed wires" imo, but I do think we're on the "same page" now's all)...
Whatever. Now if you could use sane paragraphs, nice, short, concise posts, and cut out all the annoying yelling (caps and boldface)... then we'd really be on the same page.
Re:Believe it or not? It's what I suspected (Java) by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 07:51 · Score: 1

Like I said, your router is broken. I wouldn't trust a router to mangle HTML anyway. HTML should be parsed in the browser, not the router. I want my router to give my browser exactly what it asked for. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re:Believe it or not? It's what I suspected (Java) by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 07:52 · Score: 1

I'd be interested, though, in a pastebin dump of the Facebook source code both with and without your router mangling it, just to see what your router did that broke Facebook.
Re:Fair enough (2 each his own) & ON ROUTER is by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 08:10 · Score: 1

You remembered incorrectly. AdBlock Plus rules are not written in Javascript. In fact, you don't have to write them in any code at all... there is a user-friendly interface to help write AdBlock Plus rules, as seen in this .png image.
The help tooltip for "Restrict to domain" even tells how to set up domain restrictions/exclusions:
"Use this option to specify one or more domains separated by a bar line (|). The filter will only be applied on the domain(s) selected. A tilde (~) before a domain name indicates that the filter will not be applied on that domain."
So basically the rules I posted could have been created entirely from that interface.
Note that it's saying that the item I originally clicked to block (cloud_64.png) would not be blocked by the rule. Since it's a third-party rule restricted to ~slashdot.org, it would only be blocked if a website other than slashdot.org or a.fsdn.com tried to embed it.
By the way, that was also one of your "20 points" in your list (the one you challenged me to disprove). You might want to revise it. ABP rules aren't written in Javascript.
Re:Router works: but this's way, Way, WAY ODD! by _0xd0ad · 2012-01-09 08:12 · Score: 1

Oh, it works FINE... I like it in fact!
Its Java-blocking feature breaks websites that don't use Java. That's pretty broken IMHO.