Slashdot Mirror
Gawker Media To Require Commenters' Facebook, Twitter, Or Google Logins
First time accepted submitter wynterwynd writes "In a move that seems to be in line with Gawker Media founder Nick Denton's opinion of his sites' commenters, some Gawker Media sites are now instructing their commenters that they will have to link their Gawker commenter ID with their Facebook, Twitter, or Google accounts in order to log in. Is this really a good idea, considering the security issues Gawker has had in the past? Per the article, for 'security purposes' Gawker is 'putting our account security layer in the hands of some of the best in the business — major sites with more security expertise and resources than anyone else on the web.' To my mind, it's hard to see this as anything but a grab to milk Gawker commenters' social networking accounts for targeted ad revenue — which really shouldn't be a surpirse considering Denton's contempt for most of the Gawker community. Is this a step too far for an online community? Is it a cash grab or a genuine effort to encourage secure and responsible posting?"
Add Gawker to the same list the New York Times is on. That is, "pass."
I already don't comment on most sites which require a login (/. is an exception) -- but I can't even imagine wanting to link my personal social media account with a commenting account. What a horrible idea.
The privacy issues alone are a big deal, but sometimes you want to say something that you can't have directly linked back to yourself (for various reasons). I'm not defending criminal activity or hate speech, but I could think of examples where expressing your view could cause issues because of your religion / country of residence / association with others etc.
Call me naive, but I have no idea why websites like using other social networks for authentication. Is there something so secure that I can trust Facebook with any and all logins and passwords for not just me, but all my users?
Yes, FB and Google have two factor authentication as options, but when it comes to making sure my users have basic security, I'd rather pack my own parachute, and have a dedicated appliance store username/password hashes so if someone owns the rest of my boxes, they can't just scoop out passwords that can be used at other sites.
Maybe this can be a market niche -- a site offering not just OpenID, but a custom API like the old Microsoft Passport allowing people to authenticate from that site, optionally using an app or SecurID key fob.
I refuse to link facebook or twitter or any other account that has my real name. If I can't login under an Email handle/alias then I simply don't post on that website.
Sorry gawker. You lost my business/ad views.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
The summary, as you might expect, is a little off.
What's happening here is that Gawker is switching from its own account system to using the accounts of existing social services (Google, Facebook or twitter). This is not them asking for your account but rather asking you to AUTHORISE gawker's access to your account details. If this is an issue, please go talk to Disqus or even Twitter/Facebook/Google themselves, who also let you "link" accounts from other services, as well as a bunch of other sites. This is the way the web is going and is nothing new.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Just because you let Google handle the login doesn't mean Gawker gets anything more from you than an email address which you were already obligated to provide in the past. And since Gmail is already great at handling spam, there is precious little opportunity for Gawker to profit from this by selling your email address. Spamming Gmail accounts is already a fools errand.
At least in Google's case, they glean nothing either, other than the fact that you use Gawker, but any advertising revenue that comes to google via that knowledge goes to Google, and not Gawker. All they provide Gawker is a YES or NO answer when you ask to log in.
Given the rapidity with which one can create gmail/facebook/twitter accounts it won't assure "secure and responsible" posting either. Its easy enough to have an account that is reserved for such postings, even one per web-site if you want.
All this does is allow Gawker to off-load all user account stuff to some other entity, making them less of a hacking target, because there will be Nothing Much There to Gain. (Some would say this is an attribute of Gawker Media in general.) Having one less web site holding my passwords in an insecure database is a plus as far as I am concerned.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I really wish someone would buy Lifehacker. I really like it but not Gawker.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Nothing like gawker having been hacked before to highlight how bad this is, as appropriately noted.
How is this "bad"?
Do you understand what is being discussed here? Gawker is not asking for your password for Google/Twitter/Facebook.
Rather, the ask Google (for example) to authenticate you, and Google answers YES, or NO, and never lets Gawker see your password.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Didn't you read TFS?
Gawker is "putting our account security layer in the hands of some of the best in the business — major sites with more security expertise and resources than anyone else on the web."
You can rest easy, HBGary is on the case!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Then you can't be monetized, and therefore are not of interest to Gawker. From his perspective, you take but contribute nothing in return. Cynical, but Gawker's a business not a charity. They're also criminals, but that's another matter.
Denton's right about comment sections being basically useless, though. Just look around you. Look at Slashdot's comments. Just a bunch of adolescent OS bigots who don't know shit.
Yes, I am aware of the irony.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
on telling us your devs are not capable of doing their jobs and letting me know I can't use your site because I don't want to use any of the social sites.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Technically, Facebook's authentication at a minimum gives a lot of personal info to the service. Even the most basic level of Facebook Connect gives them access to a list of your friends, profile information, and so on. So it's a little more than blind authentication.
No, I don't want this.
It's none of Google's business what I do on Nick Denton's sites. And it's none of Nick Denton's business what my G+/Y!/FB profile was.
If I had any use for Gawker Media, all it means is that I'd have to set up yet another browser profile and associate that with whatever disposable email address I'd originally created for use with his sites.
Anyone who gives a damn about security or privacy issues knows the value of compartmentalization, and ought to be rightfully resentful of any attempt to bridge unrelated accounts.