Facebook May Dislike the Social Fixer Extension, but Many Users Love It (Video)

simple reason by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 07:46 · Score: 1

they don't like it because it makes their designers look stupid

Re:simple reason by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 07:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, their designers make their designers look stupid.
Re:simple reason by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2013-10-15 08:09 · Score: 1

Yes, but fighting against it makes their executives look stupid.

--

Technoli
Re:simple reason by VortexCortex · 2013-10-15 08:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Checkmate, creationists.
Re:simple reason by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 08:49 · Score: 2, Informative

they don't like it because it makes their designers look stupid
Yes and no.
The answer to the article is "Go read the articles which Arstechnica already ran regarding Social Fixer".
But if you absolutely cannot be bothered, here's a brief rundown:
Facebook's TOS and developer EULA states (in layman's terms) that you can't make any changes to how the site is presented to the user.
This is exactly what Social Fixer does- it changes what and how the page renders. Now, we can get into an argument about whether or not they should have such an agreement, and argue about whether or not it affects Facebook's servers (since such plugins DO change how your browser will interact with the server), but that's all missing the point.
The point is that some time back FB shut down a bunch of different pages by other authors of other extensions which modified how the page was presented to the user. But Social Fixer got a free pass, probably because a) it was useful and well-written and b) the guy had been courting employment with FB and had inside connections.
When Ars ran the story about the other sites getting whacked but not Social Fixer, a bunch of people started bitching at Facebook about playing favorites.
So Facebook decided to apply the rules equally to everybody, and shut down the Social Fixer page.
At this point the author of Fixer started running around the internet pissing and crying about how he had no idea why he was shut down, even though his OWN BLOG flat out stated the reasons, and basically bitching that he was no longer getting a special exemption.
So, there you have it.
Re:simple reason by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 08:53 · Score: 0

No, they don't like it because it stops there being any benefit in people paying to appear high up on lots of users feeds, and hence cuts off their revenue stream.
Re:simple reason by NatasRevol · 2013-10-15 09:00 · Score: 1

That's so ... Facebook.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:simple reason by tompaulco · 2013-10-15 09:17 · Score: 2

Facebook's TOS and developer EULA states (in layman's terms) that you can't make any changes to how the site is presented to the user.
But this is a browser extension, it wouldn't affect how somebody else views your page, just you. Or am I missing something?
So I guess Microsoft, Google, Firefox et. al. would be in violation of the TOS right off the bat, because without a browser it doesn't render at all, but with one of those, it renders differently than nothing at all, and, I am guessing, all slightly different from each other.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Re:simple reason by SecurityTheatre · 2013-10-15 09:30 · Score: 1

This is a BROWSER EXTENSION.
I have a question for you. What if he had the gaul to go into the FireFox code and bury this functionality within the browser.
He could call it the "BookFaceFox Browser"
Is he now still in violation of the TOS? What if he puts in the feature list "does not allow websites to override the functionality of the Enter key" and "stops stupid web designers from making non-scrolling text boxes", etc? :-D
Re:simple reason by Zargg · 2013-10-15 09:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is just a browser extension that isn't using any Facebook APIs though, so it is not bound by the Facebook TOS and dev EULA.
Re:simple reason by chuckugly · 2013-10-15 09:47 · Score: 1

Facebook's TOS and developer EULA states (in layman's terms) that you can't make any changes to how the site is presented to the user.
So based on that the browser makers should be banned from FB since they are changing the presentation from raw HTML to rendered, and anyone who works in display technologies too, if they include controls like color corrections and so on .... or since it's a plugin maybe instead of the plugin author, FB should ban each individual plugin USER. Lame.
Re:simple reason by gregor-e · 2013-10-15 09:49 · Score: 1

It may also have to do with Facebook not wanting to field emails from Jimmy's Grandma after Jimmy visits and installs Social Fixer on Grandma's browser, and Grandma wants to know where the ticker went and how to change the fuchsia color bar Jimmy set up.
Re:simple reason by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 09:59 · Score: 1

This is a BROWSER EXTENSION.
No.
This is a FACEBOOK PAGE which promoted an extension.

Is he now still in violation of the TOS?
The TOS violation is making a FB page to promote the plugin because of how the extension operates. You can make an extension which sniffs keystrokes and has nothing to do with Facebook at all, but it's a TOS violation to make a FB page to promote it.
Does that clear it up a little bit?
NOTE:
I'm not defending FB AT ALL in this, but this guy isn't any better. He was perfectly fine with FB whacking the OTHER extensions, even going as far as to brag about it, and FB only shut his page down after he made a big enough stink about it that he got a front page Ars article. Now that he's being given equal treatment, he's pissing ME off by spamming slashdot with his bullshit.
We discussed your story a MONTH AGO Matt, piss off!
Re:simple reason by xevioso · 2013-10-15 10:11 · Score: 1

He's right, you know. A "great designer" did a pretty crappy job of designing things, like, say the appendix.
Here's a list of things the "creator" supposedly designed.
http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm
Re: simple reason by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 10:39 · Score: 0

What's lame is this typical slashtardistic hyperbole that's completely out of touch with reality.
Re:simple reason by Joce640k · 2013-10-15 10:51 · Score: 2

you can post Facebook comments with line breaks you control with your "Enter" key
What's wrong with SHIFT+ENTER...?

--
No sig today...
Re:simple reason by Internetuser1248 · 2013-10-15 10:52 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I have a browser plugin that solves all the annoyances of facebook. Noscript, set specifically to block any content from facebook. Deleting my account removed 99% of facebook annoyance but noscript clears up those last few like buttons.
Re:simple reason by znrt · 2013-10-15 11:40 · Score: 2

Facebook's TOS and developer EULA states (in layman's terms) that you can't make any changes to how the site is presented to the user.
since facebook has absolutely no say in what some user can or can't run on his own computer while using facebook, this part of the TOS is not only remarkably moronic but simply moot. you people really take this bs seriously?
thanks for the gossip, anyway. i still don't give a shit.
Re:simple reason by Fjandr · 2013-10-15 12:32 · Score: 4, Informative

Because "Enter" is used everywhere else to create a line break in a text box.
Re:simple reason by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 15:12 · Score: 0

Has anyone notified Asterix and Obelix?
Re:simple reason by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 20:39 · Score: 0

woooosh
Re:simple reason by geirlk · 2013-10-16 04:10 · Score: 1

That's why you didn't get invited to the party.
"What party?"
Exactly..
Re: simple reason by allo · 2013-10-16 05:23 · Score: 1

i think you're not getting his point.
Re:simple reason by allo · 2013-10-16 05:24 · Score: 1

they cannot forbid the extension (development).
But they can forbid users to use it. The users agreed the TOS. So they can cancel their accounts, if the users use this extension. Of course, losing a lot of users will hurt them more, than losing one developer. But they could spread some FUD about doing so, and this would prevent the use of the extension.
Re:simple reason by flappinbooger · 2013-10-16 23:15 · Score: 1

Because "Enter" is used everywhere else to create a line break in a text box.
Not in quickbooks.
At least not in the version I have...

--
Flappinbooger isn't my real name

I always justed used an external editor by mark-t · 2013-10-15 07:47 · Score: 2

I have a text editor window open at all times on my computer anyways... when I want to post a comment to Facebook, I compose it in my editor, lay it out how I want, and then copy and paste it into the edit box.

Doing this poses absolutely no problems with having line breaks in comments, but even more importantly, I don't have to worry about the edit box not sizing correctly if I end up going on and what I'm writing ends up going right off the bottom of box, which doesn't always scroll up as I type.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:I always justed used an external editor by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 07:56 · Score: 5, Informative

I always just use shift+enter.
Re:I always justed used an external editor by SJHillman · 2013-10-15 08:00 · Score: 2, Informative

What's wrong with shift+enter for line breaks like most other websites with Press-Enter-to-Submit?
Re:I always justed used an external editor by mark-t · 2013-10-15 08:01 · Score: 1

That still doesn't solve the problem where facebook's edit box doesn't automatically scroll up or resize when you type past the bottom of your browser window.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:I always justed used an external editor by gbjbaanb · 2013-10-15 08:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

because the enter key is the thing designed to enter linebreaks in editors. That it was hijacked by websites to do something different is not the enter key's fault. Most users, and remember what kind of user uses facebook, expect enter to add a linebreak like ti does everywhere else.
Re:I always justed used an external editor by SJHillman · 2013-10-15 08:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe ten or fifteen years ago. On the modern Web, users expect Enter to equal Submit... especially for a single textbox entry form that, the vast majority of the time, is only used for a single sentence or less. It's fairly standard across the Web and has been for quite some time.
Re:I always justed used an external editor by MightyYar · 2013-10-15 08:11 · Score: 2

because the enter key is the thing designed to enter linebreaks in editors.
I'm pretty sure it (for computers) has always been task-dependent. On a typewriter it is a CR, but not on computers. Macs even have a Return and an Enter key, and Excel used to do two different things for those two different keys.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re: I always justed used an external editor by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 08:33 · Score: 0

You spend WAAAAYYY too much time on FB
Re:I always justed used an external editor by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 08:58 · Score: 1

My old PC keyboard had a return key and an enter key.
They did different things. Modern PCs think these are the same key.
Re:I always justed used an external editor by suutar · 2013-10-15 09:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

So I should be expecting 'Enter' here to press the Preview button?
Re:I always justed used an external editor by TheSeatOfMyPants · 2013-10-15 09:16 · Score: 1

Where is it standard, aside from on Twitter? Web forums, Google +, question-answering sites (e.g. Yahoo Answers, Ask), pretty much anywhere we're attempting to express a personal opinion etc. -- the only place it consistently means "submit" is basically search boxes. I was floored and deeply confused when Facebook *didn't* follow that paradigm.

--
Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
Re:I always justed used an external editor by Zalbik · 2013-10-15 09:21 · Score: 4, Informative

It's fairly standard across the Web and has been for quite some time..
No, it isn't standard when the text the user is entering is frequently multi-line....like, say, for comments.
Just checked:
Slashdot -> enter works
Youtube -> enter works
Engadget -> enter works
Ars -> enter works
Gizmodo -> enter works
Any forum I can think of -> enter works
There is no reason for Facebook to be different.
Re:I always justed used an external editor by TheSpoom · 2013-10-15 09:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Users expect enter to mean submit when they're typing into a single-line text input field. If you're in a textarea, it should give you a line break. Facebook at least makes their textarea look like a plain text input, so I suppose I can't hate on them too much.

--
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
Re:I always justed used an external editor by clem.dickey · 2013-10-15 12:51 · Score: 1

History: The IBM 3270 series terminals, which predated the PC and with which all the original IBM PC developers were familiar, had separate "Return" (carriage return) and "Enter" (submit form) keys. This architecture minimized precious CPU interrupts. You would fill out an entire form in the terminal, with multiple fields and multiple lines on the peripheral device, then send the whole form to the CPU in one action. This was important in an architecture originally designed for batch processing, and which referred interactive support as the "Time-Sharing Option."
That's a long way from the Unix model, in which every keystroke generated an interrupt, or the PC paradigm, where every key-down and key-up action generated an interrupt.
On my IBM PC keyboard, the word "Enter" is above a "return" symbol. So for sites like Facebook, which require a shift for the "return" function, the non-shift action is the upper marking and the shift action is the lower marking!.
Re:I always justed used an external editor by smart_ass · 2013-10-15 15:15 · Score: 1

Also depends what sorts of post you mostly do.
If most of posts are multi-line, then it is more convenient to do a "normal" ENTERs throughout and a CTRL-ENTER once at the end.
This post saves 5 SHIFT's and costs one CTRL with Matt's scheme.

--
Ouch ... did I just say that.
Re:I always justed used an external editor by mjwx · 2013-10-15 18:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

There is no reason for Facebook to be different.
Facebook is not a forum.

They've been heading for twitterfication for a while, it's fairly obvious Facebook does not want long conversations where line breaks are necessary.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:I always justed used an external editor by mjwx · 2013-10-15 18:27 · Score: 1

Users expect
Users dont know what to expect, they dont know what they want either and will complain bitterly about what they've got.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:I always justed used an external editor by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 21:54 · Score: 0

False. Return is for line breaks. Enter is enter.
Re:I always justed used an external editor by TheSpoom · 2013-10-16 03:25 · Score: 1

Users expect what their UI usually gives them. Break from that pattern at your peril.

--
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
Re:I always justed used an external editor by gravis777 · 2013-10-16 04:19 · Score: 1

No - that is fixed by getting a working browser
Re:I always justed used an external editor by mark-t · 2013-10-16 04:20 · Score: 1

Firefox isn't a working browser?

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

I know how to get the best out of Facebook by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2013-10-15 07:47 · Score: 1, Informative

without browser extension or anything: just don't use the blasted thing...

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by SJHillman · 2013-10-15 08:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Genius! I don't know how you come up with these ideas. Did you know we can eliminate the risk of being in an automobile crash by never leaving home? And we will never suffer from food poisoning if we just don't eat.
We get it. You don't use Facebook. You think that makes you special. I bet you don't have a TV either. Hell, you probably don't even remember what a TV looks like. We understand you here.
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by RazorSharp · 2013-10-15 08:25 · Score: 0

Genius! I don't know how you come up with these ideas. Did you know we can eliminate the risk of being in an automobile crash by never leaving home? And we will never suffer from food poisoning if we just don't eat.
We get it. You don't use Facebook. You think that makes you special. I bet you don't have a TV either. Hell, you probably don't even remember what a TV looks like. We understand you here.
The difference between Facebook and automobiles is that automobiles aren't just convenient, but for most people they're necessary. Your food analogy is even worse. A more apt food analogy is that the OP eats a balanced diet of organic food that provides him with nutrition and energy, represented by useful and informative websites; while you eat fast food every day that clogs your arteries and gives you postprandial somnolence, represented by Facebook.
You're not an ethical consumer. We get it. You think it makes you fit in. I bet you only watch reality TV. Hell, you probably don't even remember what a book looks like. We understand you here.
Snark is the wit of morons.

--
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by khellendros1984 · 2013-10-15 08:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Some of my friends don't check their e-mail more than once every few weeks and don't sign in to any instant messenger often, but most of them are on Facebook at least once per day. If something else had quite the communications potential for reaching a long list of friends quickly, I'd be more than interested. As it is, Facebook serves a purpose as a semi-public message board, announcement center, etc. Its usefulness depends on your own circle of friends.

--
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 09:06 · Score: 0

without browser extension or anything: just don't use the blasted thing...
Have to agree. FB sucks and is total waste of everyone's time and money.
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by vux984 · 2013-10-15 09:23 · Score: 2

Some of my friends don't check their e-mail more than once every few weeks and don't sign in to any instant messenger often,
And they don't have phones? Wherein you text them, or even call them when you want to talk to them?
If something else had quite the communications potential for reaching a long list of friends quickly,
Anyone who prioritizes being able to send a long list of people a message that highly isn't likely to be sending messages I need to read.
And If you wanted to invite me to a party and we're such good friends yet it doesn't even merit a text message or a phone call...well I've got better things to do.
Its usefulness depends on your own circle of friends.
If you need facebook to be able to talk to your friends, then you need new friends.
Yes, yes, some guy now always pipes up about how facebook lets him keep in touch with some cousin half way around the world who doesn't apparently know how to use any technology except facebook, and further - he or she doesn't care enough about remaining in contact with YOU to lift a finger to make any sort of effort beyond passively catching your messages you leave them on facebook, and if you couldn't reach them on facebook you'd lose contact with them.
I'd let them go... if I'm that unimportant to the other person... why would I make staying in touch that important to me?
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by jittles · 2013-10-15 09:24 · Score: 1

Genius! I don't know how you come up with these ideas. Did you know we can eliminate the risk of being in an automobile crash by never leaving home?
I have a friend that will tell you just how untrue that statement is. He was hit by a car while watching TV on his couch. Staying inside did nothing to help him!
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by Zalbik · 2013-10-15 09:28 · Score: 1

A more apt food analogy is that the OP eats a balanced diet of organic food that provides him with nutrition and energy, represented by useful and informative websites
Given that we are all on Slashdot here, I don't think this is a very apt analogy at all.
All kidding aside, I think a much better analogy would be someone complaining that the power button on their TV remote is difficult to reach, with the GP's response being "then don't watch TV".
It's an intellectually vapid response designed to make the poster seem superior to those posting the question, while at the same time communicating no useful information whatsoever other than the fact that the person posting it is a jerk.
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by khellendros1984 · 2013-10-15 10:08 · Score: 1

And they don't have phones? Wherein you text them, or even call them when you want to talk to them?
Some are more responsive on Facebook than to a phone call. Go figure.

As for your other points: To each their own. Apparently newer forms of communication aren't useful to you and your social circle; that's fine, I'm sure it's true for many. Among my friends and family, Facebook is sometimes the quickest way to circulate information that just isn't important enough for a phone call.

I'd let them go... if I'm that unimportant to the other person... why would I make staying in touch that important to me?
I'm not following. What about electronic contact makes you feel like you're unimportant to someone else? It's less formal, yes, but that's actually how I'd prefer my interpersonal contact to be.

As I said before, it's a very "to each their own"/YMMV situation.

--
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 10:23 · Score: 0

I have neither TV, nor car... by choice. The car is the most inconvenient to lack, on occasion, mostly when moving house. I still get around, by bicycle, or railways if I have to. Around here that's viable.
The problem with the likes of facebook is that it's increasingly harder to ignore them, as they seemingly infect every other website out there too. Soonish they'll be made effectively mandatory. Something cars and televisions still are not.
Note that your assertion isn't true, by the by: People have gotten mixed up in automobile crashes while staying "safely" indoors--'t was the driver that then ran the automobile inside anyway. This isn't supposed to happen, but it does. OTOH, facebook is driving right towards "owning" as much of the 'web and its user base as it can.
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 10:25 · Score: 0

Some of my friends don't check their e-mail more than once every few weeks and don't sign in to any instant messenger often,
And they don't have phones? Wherein you text them, or even call them when you want to talk to them?
If something else had quite the communications potential for reaching a long list of friends quickly,
Anyone who prioritizes being able to send a long list of people a message that highly isn't likely to be sending messages I need to read.
And If you wanted to invite me to a party and we're such good friends yet it doesn't even merit a text message or a phone call...well I've got better things to do.
Its usefulness depends on your own circle of friends.
If you need facebook to be able to talk to your friends, then you need new friends.
Yes, yes, some guy now always pipes up about how facebook lets him keep in touch with some cousin half way around the world who doesn't apparently know how to use any technology except facebook, and further - he or she doesn't care enough about remaining in contact with YOU to lift a finger to make any sort of effort beyond passively catching your messages you leave them on facebook, and if you couldn't reach them on facebook you'd lose contact with them.
I'd let them go... if I'm that unimportant to the other person... why would I make staying in touch that important to me?
Gah. Wish I had mod points....
Mod parent up, please!
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by vux984 · 2013-10-15 10:47 · Score: 1

Some are more responsive on Facebook than to a phone call. Go figure.
I'm not really sure what to make of that... if I had a friend that was only responsive to handwritten letters I likely wouldn't oblige him.
If I had a friend that was only responsive on facebook, I expect he'd figure things out when he realized people weren't talking to him anymore. Yet his phone was full of texts and voicemails.
Apparently newer forms of communication aren't useful to you and your social circle; that's fine
I'm curious why you deliberately chose to conflate "newer" with "invasive and proprietary advertising platforms". My friends and family are all about "newer" -- but we select platforms where we are the owner, or at least the customer, as opposed to platforms where we are the product.
Among my friends and family, Facebook is sometimes the quickest way to circulate information
The information and rights you assign facebook just for the ability to "circulate information" a bit quicker is a pretty lousy trade, especially as facebook doesn't even possess anything that makes it uniquely qualified to do it. Its not like choosing between writing a letter or using the phone where the phone is orders of magnitude faster... its like choosing between a phone that records everything you say, for a slightly different shaped phone that doesn't*, and requires minimal setup.
(* fuck you NSA)
. What about electronic contact makes you feel like you're unimportant to someone else?
Nothing at all. Re-read my message. I am not suggesting that the only way that is acceptable is via landline calls made from a rotary phone. I am fine with receiving text messages on 2 different numbers, or email at 5 different addresses, or instant messages on 2 different platforms. I also use a number of forums, IRC, and so on.
Nobody needs to use any one thing in particular to reach me.
If my friends want to get a hold of me, they have a variety of options.
And that was my point. When you tell the facebook crowd they don't need facebook, they always seem to end to up whining about some oh-so-important friend/relative to them that is ONLY available on facebook... that NO OTHER TECHNOLOGY on the face of the planet can reach them.
And YES, if there is someone out there who is ONLY reachable on facebook, and who is unwilling to make themselves available to you via any other channel... then yeah, you are not that important to them.
I have friends that don't like steam. I have friends that like skype, I have friends that rarely check their email. I have friends that prefer email to texts. I even have friends who use facebook a lot -- but its not the only way to get in touch with them.
As I said before, it's a very "to each their own"/YMMV situation.
And as I said before, nobody needs facebook. And its such an objectionably implemented concept that only a fool would choose to use it.
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by Valdrax · 2013-10-15 11:24 · Score: 1

Some of my friends don't check their e-mail more than once every few weeks and don't sign in to any instant messenger often, but most of them are on Facebook at least once per day. If something else had quite the communications potential for reaching a long list of friends quickly, I'd be more than interested.
You just listed two technologies that used to do this exact thing before people got tired of them and moved onto the next big thing. Someday, Facebook will be the same for all of you.

--
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by khellendros1984 · 2013-10-15 11:31 · Score: 1

I never said that I need it, just that it's the most convenient method of communication for a subset of my social group. On my profile, Facebook has access to my name, marital status, friends list, the text that I post on the service, the "likes" that I placed some 7 years ago and subsequently deleted, and the dozen sets of false biographical data that I used to enter as a game with another friend, to see who could come up with the most outlandish combinations. Every E-mail provider I've ever had has more correct information about me.

The information and rights you assign facebook just for the ability to "circulate information" a bit quicker is a pretty lousy trade, especially as facebook doesn't even possess anything that makes it uniquely qualified to do it.
With the exception of popularity, I agree. My luck hasn't been so great convincing people to switch to other platforms...so I go where the people are and make the best of it.

--
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by wjcofkc · 2013-10-15 11:32 · Score: 1

I'm sure the scoring on this post is in a state of flux of up down and that some of the people are flaming you in their responses and getting score fives, but I'm with you on this but I don't any mod points so I'll comment. Facebook is a moral cesspool, on that ground alone it should not be supported by decent people. Here in the U.S. fully 1/3 of divorce proceedings now contain the word Facebook at least once. Facebook as a communications medium promotes some of the worst human behavior and inspires jealousy - It's worse than AOL circa 1996. Further, if someone can't be bothered to to respond to a text message over a Facebook post, that's their problem. As far as social networking goes, I still use g+, but only with communities centered around topics of interest - typically OSS related.

--
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by vux984 · 2013-10-15 12:09 · Score: 1

I never said that I need it
Understood.
I threw that up as pre-emptive defense, because in these sorts of arguments their ARE people (not you) who do claim that they need it for such and such and that its the only way to reach so-and-so etc. I don't claim that set includes you and didn't mean to imply that.
On my profile, Facebook has access to my name, marital status, friends list, the text that I post on the service...
Look, if you are a typical facebook user that think that, you are probably grossly underestimating things.
From a full access to your profile, and the profiles you are connected to, and your indication that you "circulate information to the family" I almost guarantee I can pin down where you live, how old you are, how many kids you have, their genders, their age, where they go to school, your income bracket, likely know what car you drive, your phone number, your hobbies, perhaps even where you shop, where you work, what you do, what your work schedule is, whether you cook or dine out, where you eat when you do, what you cook when you don't, how much you weigh, whether you exercise, your political affiliation...
Seriously.
Actually, I could probably get that without looking at your profile at all, and just focusing on those of your friends, assuming even just of few them "over share".
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by khellendros1984 · 2013-10-15 13:18 · Score: 1

Probably. But my credit card has more information about me (and they sell it), my E-mail provider knows more about me (and they sell it), etc. I'm not under any illusions that Facebook doesn't do the same. I'm sure that you're right about the amount of information they've got (or pretty close). Especially circa 2005-2006, I was pretty liberal with the information I shared, before it became clear that the "free" service had a trade-off. The barn door's been open for a long time, and had been even around 2008, when I started caring about what I posted. The cows are long escaped.

I wouldn't consider myself quite the typical Facebook user, anyhow. They have a total of 38 pictures uploaded by me in my roughly 8 years of use of their service, and about 70 more than that of me, tagged by family members. I don't "like" things, don't join groups, don't use apps, etc. If they can pull some meaning out of data-mining my text replies to other people's posts, then more power to them.

--
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 13:59 · Score: 0

Great analogies. The automobile and Facebook. Eating food and Facebook.
Keep up the good work, these are the high quality comments that keep Slashdot at the top.
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 15:17 · Score: 0

Right, because if you don't use Facebook, you must be a Luddite. That's why we're posting on Slashdot, because we're Luddites. Maybe instead people should pick and choose between good uses of technology and bad uses of technology? It's not all or nothing, you know.
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by zippthorne · 2013-10-15 17:26 · Score: 1

if they can pull some meaning out of data-mining my text replies to other people's posts, then more power to them.

Yes, you have identified the problem.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:I know how to get the best out of Facebook by IwantToKeepAnon · 2013-10-16 03:27 · Score: 1

without browser extension or anything: just don't use the blasted thing...
"I, personally, would rather spend my time doing something useful than watch television," Green told a random woman Monday at the Suds 'N' Duds Laundromat, noticing the establishment's wall-mounted TV. "I don't even own one."

--
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy

Interesting litmus test... by mlts · 2013-10-15 07:47 · Score: 2

It is interesting watching FB's reaction to this. This doesn't seem to bode well for people who want to work outside the ecosystem FB has.

Short term, this can be understandable -- if it is not using the API, or things FB can control, it can't be monetized, so FB seems to take steps to stop it.

Long term, it may not be in FB's best interest. Right now, there is no competition on the horizon other than G+ [1] and possibly VK, but there is a tipping point somewhere that people might start moving to another provider and its relatively higher privacy controls en masse, forcing their friends to come along, and we will see something similar to the MySpace -> FB transition.

I don't see many people really loving FB. It tends to be more of something tolerated, with people sighing and grumbling every time there is a UI change. Too much pressure, and people eventually will start moving over to another service.

Who knows... maybe this might be another market for Apple. They already have the in-house expertise for it (iTunes Ping), and I'm sure that if they opened their doors for a social network, they would get people flooding in just on name recognition alone.

Re:Interesting litmus test... by lister+king+of+smeg · 2013-10-15 08:08 · Score: 1

thats just it they had ping it flopped so bad that not even apple cultists used it. It has been replaced with facebook integration so i doubt apple could pull of a social network at this point.

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Re:Interesting litmus test... by Samantha+Wright · 2013-10-15 08:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

One of its features is blocking ads (and paid placements, i.e. ads.) That's what Facebook is upset about. It's that simple.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:Interesting litmus test... by MattKruse · 2013-10-15 08:56 · Score: 2

If that were the case, you'd think they would have gone after AdBlock Plus by now, wouldn't you? Or at least removed their official Facebook Page?
Re:Interesting litmus test... by roninmagus · 2013-10-15 09:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

It would at least make sense if that were the case. But, it isn't. They have demanded he remove portions of social fixer that have nothing to do with ads or the blocking of them. In my opinion, when your site serves up HTML, as long as my browser does not subvert your webserver to gain unauthorized access, or use your APIs in a way that you did not intend it to, then what I do with that HTML you have served up is entirely my business.
Re:Interesting litmus test... by Kazoo+the+Clown · 2013-10-15 09:23 · Score: 1

Facebook is nothing more than a slightly better mailing list handler. It allows me to post messages to a batch of friends at once, just like a mailing list but with crappy security controls and a marginally better UI that's getting worse with every upgrade. That's all It is, IMHO. What I'd really like to see is something that will block all photos of food. I mean, come on, I really don't care what sort of crap you had for dinner.
Re:Interesting litmus test... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 10:38 · Score: 0

So what? It's Facebook's site, it's their content, it's their rules. They can block whoever they want for whatever reason they want whenever they want. And you know what, you may be entitled to a full refund if Facebook incorrectly or unfairly denies you access to their site. But, since individual users pay Facebook only with their time and usage of the site, that is their refund. Their time that would otherwise be spent on Facebook, they get all of that back. Actually, that sounds pretty good.
Re:Interesting litmus test... by Samantha+Wright · 2013-10-15 10:40 · Score: 2

See previous story: "Bizarrely, when he asked Facebook why they don't also threaten Ad-Block, the Facebook rep claimed to have never heard of it."

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:Interesting litmus test... by CCarrot · 2013-10-15 11:37 · Score: 1

So what? It's Facebook's site, it's their content, it's their rules. They can block whoever they want for whatever reason they want whenever they want.
Funny, I thought all those posts and photos and stuff belonged to the users who posted them...wait, wait, my bad. Didn't read the fine print, especially their "all your face are belong to us" policy...
Gawd, so glad I don't drink that particular Kool-aid...

--
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Re:Interesting litmus test... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 12:41 · Score: 0

Not that I disagree with you, but they're serving up a specific user experience which they've tested to be best at providing a certain experience and also serving up ads. One of the things that distinguished them from myspace was that everything was in a particular spot on the page and every page looked the same, except for the user-generated content. It's not surprising to me that they don't want that changed by third parties.
Re:Interesting litmus test... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 13:03 · Score: 0

The other side of this story is that Facebook is threatening legal action if Matt does not comply. It's not so much an issue with the page as it is their legal threats.
Re:Interesting litmus test... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 14:55 · Score: 0

There are ads on the internet? LOL. Really? Next you're going to tell me unwanted email still comes to your inbox.
Re:Interesting litmus test... by mjwx · 2013-10-15 18:30 · Score: 1

See previous story: "Bizarrely, when he asked Facebook why they don't also threaten Ad-Block, the Facebook rep claimed to have never heard of it."
Adblock also doesn't work very well on facebook. It cant tell the difference between user content and Facebook's paid for content.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 07:49 · Score: 0

Who uses that?

Re:Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 08:56 · Score: 0

People with friends. And, no, your fleshlight and right hand don't count.
Re:Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 09:50 · Score: 0

And, no, your fleshlight and right hand don't count.
I'm left-handed, you insensitive clod!

Compare to RES by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 07:50 · Score: 0

Did somebody say Reddit Enhancement Suite?

Overreaching in the Name of Authority? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 07:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm a user of the extension myself, and it really seems like Facebook is going out of their way to attack the developer. The extension doesn't put any additional strain on their servers, doesn't utilize any API calls, and isn't destructive. What's next, going after users who have AdBlock installed? Or perhaps ones who aren't using a specific browser? Are they going to demand changes of Trillian or GNOME's social media integration? It should be up to the users to utilize the site in the way they prefer.

Re:Overreaching in the Name of Authority? by SJHillman · 2013-10-15 08:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

I can see the logic of "third party extensions may cause undesired behavior to the user, which could be unfairly blamed on Facebook". However, it's pretty weak logic to begin with and user education would be a better approach.
Re:Overreaching in the Name of Authority? by Nemyst · 2013-10-15 16:23 · Score: 1

Plus, people who have the know-how to install this sort of thing probably won't immediately blame Facebook about issues with the site. If they installed it for relatives, you just know the relatives will call them at the first sign of a problem, extension or not.

NIH syndrome by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 07:53 · Score: 0

Not Invented Here.

1. somebody's ego got bruised after so many people asked "why didn't FB think of this?"
2. If it takes off people may wonder why FB doesn't implement it for everyone.
3. FB had already planned to do some of it but was going to implement it differently or charge for it

Product vs. Customer by pete-classic · 2013-10-15 07:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

"We don't know why Facebook would be against a browser extension that improves their users' site experience."

Easy. You seem to be operating under the very common -- but clearly mistaken -- belief that Facebook users are Facebook's customers. In fact, Facebook's advertisers are their customers, and Facebook users are the product. Once you look at it from this perspective, everything Facebook does makes sense.

Re:Product vs. Customer by SJHillman · 2013-10-15 08:08 · Score: 2

Er, no, still doesn't make sense. To enhance the "product", Facebook needs to A) encourage more users to join and B) encourage existing users to spend as much time/information on Facebook as possible. This extension would seem to do the latter quite well by providing a better experience.
Re:Product vs. Customer by _xeno_ · 2013-10-15 08:12 · Score: 3, Informative

In fact, Facebook's advertisers are their customers, and Facebook users are the product.
Yep. One of the things my mom hates is that Facebook keeps on resetting her news feed to "top stories" or whatever Facebook calls it instead of "most recent." Why does Facebook do that, she asks?
Well, simple: because "most recent" shows her what her friends have been doing most recently, and "top stories" shows her ads for random pages she's liked, along with a couple of posts from actual humans scattered amongst the ads. Not that hard to understand, really: Facebook's customers pay them to show ads to their users, so Facebook constantly forces users back to the ad-based view.
(And to be clear, what I'm calling "ads" are in fact regular posts, they're just posts from pages like "American Idol" and "Top Chef" or whatever else my mom has "liked" on Facebook. In some cases she does actually want to see those updates, just not at the expense of not showing updates from actual people. So the obvious answer of "install AdBlock Plus" won't help in this case. It's already installed anyway.)

--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Re:Product vs. Customer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 08:30 · Score: 0

This still makes no sense.
Being mad about window dressing has nothing to do with selling the users as a product unless this tool somehow removes ads from Facebook. And I'd think they'd be far more pissed about AdBlock, since it does exactly that.
Re:Product vs. Customer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 08:38 · Score: 0

the "product" (user) must view ads, must view posts and such in the right order, must have oodles of page views, must spend MORE time on the site in order to provide a greater value their customers (advertisers and data brokers).
socialfixer allows for no ads, custom display settings, and reduced page views and time on site... everything facebook DOES NOT want because it decreases the value of its product.
facebook is well within their right to revoke api access and dev account status, deny the plugin from having a page, and even change its site code to 'break' the plugin, etc etc.. it's their site, and their oft-changed terms.
the developer of socialfixer knew he was skating on this ice and that it was only a matter of time before facebook brought the hammer down. now that that has happened, big deal, facebook is garbage anyway, with or without a plugin.
Re:Product vs. Customer by mythosaz · 2013-10-15 08:40 · Score: 4, Informative

Uh, no.
The primary purpose of the browser extension is to hide crap that you (the product) don't want to see, but advertisers (the customer) want you to see. Advertisers want to know who's clicking on trending crap - hiding it with a browser extension hurts Facebook's customers.
It also happens to have a few IU tweaks, like ENTER to carriage return.
Facebook has simply said that they're not going to keep providing a free platform for the distributor on it's own network.
[n.b. I use a similar extension, FB Purity.]
Re:Product vs. Customer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 08:45 · Score: 0

Maybe...
I saw an article a few months ago saying the exact opposite. That they liked the extension. Have offered him a job, bla bla bla...
This sounds more like he is dealing with a NIH program manager who is all twisted up about something he doesnt control.
Re:Product vs. Customer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 08:52 · Score: 1

better experience.
The cow does not decide the way it want's to be butchered. It's about control, plain and simple. It may seem as small details that Fixer changes, but it's a lot more, users could get the idea that THEY decide how the page should look, we can't have that. Facebook decides what is a better experience, not the users.
Re:Product vs. Customer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 09:17 · Score: 1

The cow does not decide the way it want's to be butchered. It's about control, plain and simple. It may seem as small details that Fixer changes, but it's a lot more, users could get the idea that THEY decide how the page should look, we can't have that. Facebook decides what is a better experience, not the users.
Wow, mod parent up (Insightful). This summarizes accurately and precisely why Facebook has a problem with Social Fixer.
If you are a web developer and competent with JavaScript, you could probably roll your own Social Fixer as a Greasemonkey Script or a Chrome Extension. If you never distributed it to anybody, Facebook would never care. At some level, once the information reaches your computer, you're going to do whatever you're going to do with it.
However, if that extension becomes popular, and users start getting the idea that customizing their social experience is a possibiilty that's a HUGE risk.
Remember, Facebook is just the latest in a long line of social networks. The digital graves of a dozen "instant message" programs, Friendster, MySpace, LinkedIn, Google+ still loom large. The danger isn't that a user is modifying his/her Facebook experience, it's that one of those users might get the very bright idea:
I can kill Facebook by creating own my social network that has the features of Social Fixer and marketing that identifies Facebook as 'Your parent's social network.'
Facebook is a terrified rabbit getting a glimpse of the tiger (Panthera tigris socialis fixera) that is about to devour them.
Re:Product vs. Customer by Arker · 2013-10-15 09:17 · Score: 1

I know that's how they look at it, but the fact is they are putting out a (very poorly done) webpage. They dont appear to understand what a webpage is. A webpage has no 'appearance' to be modified - it's appearance is the result of layout decisions made by the rendering agent which may or may not even have a visual display. So prohibiting their cattle from 'altering appearance' here is worse than stupid, it's nonsense. There is no appearance to alter.
If they dont like that (and it's clear they dont) then their remedy is to get the f off the web and build their own infrastructure that will work as they wish.
Of course they arent going to do that either. And as long as idiots in huge numbers keep signing in and implicitly supporting this travesty, providing them with a profit motive, they are just going to keep crapping all over the web.
The solution is not social fixer. The solution is to just say no to facebook.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Product vs. Customer by SJHillman · 2013-10-15 09:21 · Score: 1

In this case, it's more like offering the cow better food (UI tweaks, etc), which in turn gives the consumer higher quality meat (more time on Facebook).
Re:Product vs. Customer by znrt · 2013-10-15 12:14 · Score: 1

In this case, it's more like offering the cow better food (UI tweaks, etc), which in turn gives the consumer higher quality meat (more time on Facebook).
no. can you even read, son? quoting GP, please take your time:

The primary purpose of the browser extension is to hide crap that you (the product) don't want to see, but advertisers (the customer) want you to see. Advertisers want to know who's clicking on trending crap - hiding it with a browser extension hurts Facebook's customers.
facebook's business model is to get paid for showing crap to you while you use it. if they can't reasonably assure their customers that the crap will be seen by you, then they're out of business, no matter the user experience, period.
of course facebook can't do shit if some plugin in the wild does just that. at most they could try to fool it by changing their interface. er, periodically, because this would be a cat&mouse game. so they don't really bother as long as the plugin doesn't become too popular. but obviously they don't want it promoted on their own platform either, that's what this is all about.
Re:Product vs. Customer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 12:50 · Score: 0

Not really disagreeing, but I'm so sick of reading this and seeing it get modded up. I think someone should write a bot that finds any story about google, fb, twitter, etc., and then just posts this tired "in soviet russia" esque revelation.
Re:Product vs. Customer by antdude · 2013-10-15 15:15 · Score: 2

FYI, it's = it is. ;)

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:Product vs. Customer by zippthorne · 2013-10-15 17:12 · Score: 1

Those of us who don't use facebook are also affected by the facebug like icons on every website. First we have to waste time and bandwidth downloading it, it sometimes covers parts of the page we want to read, and it almost certainly is reporting everything about us to facebook whether we want to be part of their product or not.
Is there a list of facebook's cdn's? Just blocking [*.]facebook.com doesn't seem to be quite enough.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:Product vs. Customer by Flagran · 2013-10-16 03:07 · Score: 1

FYI, "it's" can also mean "it has". "It is", on the other hand, cannot mean "it has". We are forced to conclude, then, that "it's" (2 meanings) is not equal to "it is" (1 meaning).

--
Make love, not sigs
Re:Product vs. Customer by nathanbeach · 2013-10-16 03:56 · Score: 1

The persistent "top stories" garbage is basically the reason I deactivated my Facebook account and haven't been back in a year. I couldn't handle the "random chaos feed" taking back over randomly. It was so frustrating to be going down the feed and then realizing that it's all out of order and you've already read parts of it. Seriously, WTF. I hope they don't screw up Instagram like that.
Re:Product vs. Customer by Arker · 2013-10-16 09:14 · Score: 1

I never actually got annoyed enough by the static icons to be bothered figuring this out myself but apparently there is a fairly lengthy snippet to add to hosts to effectively block facebook at this point. Check out http://superuser.com/questions/544789/why-cant-i-block-facebook-using-etc-hosts-on-mountain-lion

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.

It's not your client, Facebook. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 07:56 · Score: 1

Seems like if I choose to make my browser client render things the way I like on my computer, that's my business. If someone releases an extension to help me do it, if anyone is breaking your TOS it's me and not them.

Feed me by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-10-15 07:57 · Score: 2

Most likely it is, or will be, interfering with the feeding of ads. Nothing mysterious.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Can I get listed as a developer by rk · 2013-10-15 07:58 · Score: 4, Funny

so Facebook will ban me too?

Re:Can I get listed as a developer by intermodal · 2013-10-15 08:11 · Score: 1

That certainly seems the easiest way to quit.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

He's Banned Now by andywest · 2013-10-15 07:58 · Score: 4, Informative

Facebook ... says creator Matt Kruze must remove them if he doesn't want to be banned from Facebook.

The threat appears to have been carried out. Kruze's Facebook page is made 'unavailable'.

--
--- Andy West http://andywest.org

Re:He's Banned Now by gbjbaanb · 2013-10-15 08:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

what a pity... now he can do whatever the f*** he likes without any regard for consequences.. like what's Facebook going to do, ban his page?
He should still open source it, then he can truthfully say "it wasn't me".
Re:He's Banned Now by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 13:05 · Score: 0

Facebook has threatened legal action. That's what is chilling about this.
Re:He's Banned Now by qvatch · 2013-10-15 18:51 · Score: 1

Well, they'll probably do what they did to fbpurity, block all links to his site from facebook. You can't post a link to it.

Streisand Effect? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-10-15 07:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hey Facebook, Google "Streisand Effect". Especially useful when you're attacking that which you have no control over.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.

Re:Streisand Effect? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-10-15 08:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

Okay, this is what I've done. IF you use FB, please feel free to copy / modify / use it.
----
Facebook has a problem. I'm trying to amplify it a bit.
It seems that Facebook doesn't like this particular webbrowser extension http://socialfixer.com/
So they have banned people for posting links to it and such. If you think that Facebook shouldn't ban people for posting links to Browser Extensions, please share. FYI, this extension does not harm Facebook, and doesn't use any feature or service offered by Facebook. They are just upset that you can change how Facebook looks and behaves.
So, please "reshare"

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Streisand Effect? by GrahamCox · 2013-10-15 09:53 · Score: 1

I'd never head of it.

Now I'm going to install it.

Re:Pitiful by Russ1642 · 2013-10-15 08:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

I can just barely tolerate the Slashvertisements. But main page stories about some stupid Facebook add-on tells me this is pretty much a site for teen girls now.

They don't want your experience streamlined by Sarusa · 2013-10-15 08:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

The fundamental bad assumption here is that FaceBook would be happy about the user experience being streamlined and more efficient. If they're showing something to you it's *because they want you to see it*, even if (or especially if) it slows you down and means you have to click more and see things you didn't want to see. You didn't want to see it, but *they* want you to see it. This extension takes away their total control.

You aren't the customer, you are the product. The cow doesn't get to choose how it gets milked.

Re:They don't want your experience streamlined by SJHillman · 2013-10-15 08:17 · Score: 2

"If they're showing something to you it's *because they want you to see it*, even if (or especially if) it slows you down "
That reminds me of what one of the shopping districts in the area tried to do recently. The road was two lanes in each direction (30mph limit) and would frequently get jammed up, especially during busy shopping seasons. Their proposed solution? Reduce it to one lane in each direction to force people to go *even slower* so that they would notice the local shops more. Fortunately, the plans were abandoned after a huge number of people called in to tell them they would just boycott the whole area if they intentionally increased congestion.
Re:They don't want your experience streamlined by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 08:25 · Score: 0

The cow doesn't get to choose how it gets milked.
Neither does the bull.
Re:They don't want your experience streamlined by darien.train · 2013-10-15 08:31 · Score: 4, Informative

The cow doesn't get to choose how it gets milked.
While I agree with your premise your metaphor is actually incorrect. This is likely due to the age of the expression but robotics now allows cows to choose when and how they are milked. Cows also give the most milk and are far less stressed with the "elective milking" system.
Automatic Milking

--
I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
Re:They don't want your experience streamlined by Sarusa · 2013-10-15 08:40 · Score: 1

Fascinating... okay, my metaphor sucks!
Re:They don't want your experience streamlined by Zalbik · 2013-10-15 09:37 · Score: 2

now allows cows to choose when and how they are milked.
Facinating!
So, using this system, if cows choose to be milked, say, by Seth Rogen in a thong (ha, made you think of it....now you can't unsee it!), they can choose this?
I'd say this system allows cows to choose when they are milked, not how.
Re:They don't want your experience streamlined by tompaulco · 2013-10-15 11:08 · Score: 1

Fascinating... okay, my metaphor sucks!
Not so! It is still quite appropriate. Facebook is the old fashioned dairy conglomerate which imagines that milking the cow when and how it wants to is good for business. Social Fixer extension is the modern milking machine which was given for free to all of the dairy conglomerates' farmers. And that whistling sound is the potential profit being whisked away as the conglomerate bans these devices from their farms.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Re:They don't want your experience streamlined by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 16:14 · Score: 0

Your link mentions being internally inconsistent:
>Possible increase in stress for some cows – Cows are social animals, and it has been found that due to dominance of some cows, others will be forced to milk only at night.[citation needed] Such behaviour is inconsistent with the perception that AM reduces stress by allowing "free choice" of milking time.
Re:They don't want your experience streamlined by Nemyst · 2013-10-15 16:27 · Score: 1

If you hear your cows tell you they want to be milked by Seth Rogen in a thong, I think you have bigger problems than a milking machine.
Re:They don't want your experience streamlined by zippthorne · 2013-10-15 17:18 · Score: 1

Although I've heard the "dump more traffic on the off chance they'll decide that even though they're late for work and pissed at us for making this situation, they might come in and buy something anyway" argument, cutting four lanes down to three wider lanes (1 ea. dir + 1 turning lane) does, in fact, sometimes improve the traffic situation.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!

Facebook and usability by intermodal · 2013-10-15 08:10 · Score: 2

Facebook doesn't seem to understand that, while the "users" are the product and the advertisers/leeches/dataminers are the customers, the "product" has legs that can and will be used when they make it bad enough to leave. SocialFixer, if it did nothing else, kept me on there a bit longer than I otherwise would have stayed. At this point, I pop in briefly to make sure I don't have messages from cousins. While using a fake name and hoping to get banned so I don't have to constantly debate how long before I finally leave.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

Re:Pitiful by the_B0fh · 2013-10-15 08:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not every discussion about an app is an advertisement. This is a legitimate issue. I use it, and like it. And if FB is trying to screw me over, because of a browser extension, we have an issue.

What next, only approved browsers can be used?

And do we need to make sure only Operating Systems that are blessed can be used?

Agree - thanks to Streisand Effect! by n5yat · 2013-10-15 08:15 · Score: 2

Agree - thanks to Streisand Effect coupled with the mere fact that FB is against it, I'm installing it!

Fake people by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 08:18 · Score: 0

Fuck Facebook.

Open Source the Code for the Plugin by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 08:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

Just make the code for the plugin open source. Other people will maintain it and make their own offshoots of it. Facebook won't be able to shut that down.

Streisand Effect by AnalogDiehard · 2013-10-15 08:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Once again, I learned about and downloaded a great utility thanks to the Streisand Effect. Thanks, Facebook!

--
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10

No offense, Matt, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 08:28 · Score: 0

...you're kind of an idiot for revealing your real name to the public? If you had remained anonymous, Facebook wouldn't have any leverage over your account.

Re:No offense, Matt, but... by MattKruse · 2013-10-15 09:04 · Score: 1

If only it were that simple...

"Moo"ving off-topic by Glires · 2013-10-15 08:30 · Score: 1

Well, with the automated milking systems used on precision dairy farms the cows do get to choose how they get milked. Not that it has anything to do with the Facebook discussion other than to suggest that Facebook treats its users with less respect than the average dairy cow.

--
-Glires

Re:"Moo"ving off-topic by Sarusa · 2013-10-15 08:41 · Score: 1

And of course in theory you can actually leave Facebook, though in practice the peer pressure works pretty damn well.
Let me just bury that metaphor under a rock somewhere.

Hi. I'm a narcissist, and so I LOVE facebook. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 08:43 · Score: 0, Funny

As I'm desperate to be the center of the world's attention, I think social networking sites such as facebook are the greatest thing ever since myself.

Look at me, everyone. Look at me.

TL;DW by capaslash · 2013-10-15 08:56 · Score: 1

TL;DW Prefer text, since it can be scanned rapidly. Video is sooooooo sllooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww. Omg. So slow.

Re:TL;DW by Chibi+Merrow · 2013-10-15 10:32 · Score: 1

So you read the handy transcript right below the video, right?

--
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them

Re:Pitiful by Russ1642 · 2013-10-15 09:03 · Score: 1

Not every discussion about an app is a Slashvertisement. True. However, this posting is clearly an ad.

FB browser add-on with simple encryption by swb · 2013-10-15 09:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'd love to see something like this. Clearly it wouldn't work for everyone, but it would be fun to have the ability to encrypt -- even if it was a basic substitution cipher -- postings and messages that would automagically be decrypted by anyone using the add-on (and having whatever the key was).

I'm not thinking of "hard" encryption, but scrambling that would totally defeat Facebook's analytics and the desire by Facebook to turn off privacy settings to enhance their search, etc.

Re:FB browser add-on with simple encryption by Richy_T · 2013-10-15 10:52 · Score: 1

I've been thinking that would be good as a generic browser extension. It should be trivial to encrypt text boxes and should be available anywhere. Maybe there is already one out there.

Re:Pitiful by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 09:08 · Score: 0

But the world is ending because they can't use their FriendFace extension!! First-world problems of this magnitude are devastating!

revenue stream by globaljustin · 2013-10-15 09:09 · Score: 1

this is about money...or at least facebook.com's perception of how they can make money

those annoying news feed tickers aren't to 'help you connect' they are 'clickbait'

everyone understands this...its the same principle as broadcast TV commercials

i think Social Fixer would get some traction if they cut out the 'aw shucks...us?' routine...Social Fixer subverts Facebook's ad delivery system...only an idiot would think f/b wouldn't respond

i hate facebook.com precisely because of their profit model...that doesn't mean we have to pretend to wonder why facebook would act against Social Fixer

--
Thank you Dave Raggett

Bullying by CopaceticOpus · 2013-10-15 09:10 · Score: 2

For most websites, banning would be a limp threat. However, Facebook has an unusual amount of power - for some users, the site may be the primary way that they keep in touch with family and friends, and could even be important to a person's career. There is no ready replacement for this. Unlike email, a person can't just switch to another provider and have a similar experience.

Facebook is being a bully here and trying to make Matt Kruze fear what he will lose if he continues development of this free browser extension. His development hobby has nothing to do with his personal, social use of Facebook. It's an irresponsible, dickish use of the power that Facebook derives from their unique market position.

Re:Bullying by defaria · 2013-10-15 12:05 · Score: 1

Bullshit. Pick up a phone and call and talk to your family and friends in a human way for a change! Jeeze we didn't used to have Facebook and guess what - nobody died nor suffered.

Oh yeah? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 09:10 · Score: 0

Social fixer may make sewer rat taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker.

Line break by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 09:14 · Score: 0

A line break can be added with Ctrl-enter without using a plugin. It's a hold over from the days of Line Feed and Carriage Return for printers.

I want one for the iPad... by Kazoo+the+Clown · 2013-10-15 09:16 · Score: 1

I'd like this feature, but I pretty much always access FB from my iPad. I do have a 24/7 Linux box running at home that could host a filtering proxy server tho. If anyone has suggestions for one of those that'd be way better than a firefox plugin...

Re:Pitiful by roninmagus · 2013-10-15 09:25 · Score: 1

This "first-world problems" thing being used to dismiss issues is getting out of hand.

Facebook hacks are tech news fodder? by BlindJesse · 2013-10-15 09:26 · Score: 1

I just stopped by too see the latest from Jon Katz and I find an article about a (weak) facebook hack? Oh....

Re:Pitiful by Desler · 2013-10-15 09:39 · Score: 1

Probably because many of those "issues" are trivialities.

Shift-Enter by wiredlogic · 2013-10-15 10:16 · Score: 1

Shift-Enter generally works for line breaks when Enter has been hijacked. No need for some mutant offspring of GreaseMonkey to get a usable text box.

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.

This is Why by LandDolphin · 2013-10-15 10:23 · Score: 1

the internet as we know it will die and be replaced by "apps". Companies don't like that the user controls one half of the interface. Companies prefer apps because it allows them to control everything.

--
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment

Re:Pitiful by Richy_T · 2013-10-15 10:40 · Score: 1

Civilization has its dividends.

Zuckerburg is an asshole by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 11:05 · Score: 0

It's that simple.

Re:Pitiful by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2013-10-15 11:15 · Score: 1

Not every discussion about an app is a Slashvertisement. True. However, this posting is clearly an ad.

Not really. He even specifically mentions another extension that competes with his in the context of wrangling with FB. They mentioned it's donate-ware at the very end... briefly.

--

Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

Finally! What we have been looking for! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 12:02 · Score: 0

Is this the true and only way to have your Facebook profile deleted permanently, for real? :) You only have to develop an extension or browser addition they don't like, and poof :)

Re:Pitiful by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 13:10 · Score: 0

You're an idiot. This extension is free and the developer does not make money from it, apart from any donations he might receive.

Do you work for Facebook's PR department?

Re:Pitiful by the_B0fh · 2013-10-15 13:51 · Score: 1

A free app. That people who use a certain platform likes. And is being crushed illegally because that platform owner hates it. And somehow this is an ad?

URDOINITWRONG!

This happened to "FacePad" too by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 14:52 · Score: 0

FacePad was a Firefox extension that let you automatically download all the photos in a Facebook album. Facebook threatened the developer saying that it violated the TOS by not using the Facebook API. The developer removed the extension. But then maybe a year later, the developer created an iPhone app called PhotoJacker to download albums from Facebook using the Facebook API.

Re:Pitiful by Russ1642 · 2013-10-15 15:29 · Score: 1

So it's by donation. They're advertizing on Slashdot for donations. I can't believe I have to explain this to you people.

Only heard of it when Facebook tried to ban it by Arancaytar · 2013-10-15 23:11 · Score: 1

And now I'm going to keep using it, because it's pretty cool.

If I were an app developer, I'd be tempted to bribe Facebook to start going after my app and drive up interest. :P

Re:Pitiful by Desler · 2013-10-16 00:58 · Score: 1

By what specific law is it being "crushed illegally"?

The larger lurking question by sjames · 2013-10-16 03:35 · Score: 1

Is it a good idea to let Facebook be so deeply ingrained in your process of communicating with friends (and in some cases business associates) when they can and have proven they will block anything you say that they don't like? For example, links to browser plugins they don't fancy? Perhaps it's time to step away from the facey spacey.

If their interface was better, I wouldn't use SF by Skynyrd · 2013-10-16 18:12 · Score: 1

The Facebook interface is death by 1,000 papercuts.

One small example:
They have decided that news will be delivered by what's popular, rather than in chronological order. Of course you can switch it to "newest first", as long as you're willing to switch it almost every time you visit the site. If they gave me a simple button that said "chronological or popular", I wouldn't have a desire to use SF.

Their arrogance makes Steve Jobs look like Michael Dell.

too much stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-25 01:13 · Score: 0

I tried it for a while and it has some good stuff, but it does not give you enough options in terms of being able to pick and choose what you want to use. you can tick and untick boxes, but it still increases load time and has a few glitches that make it more of a load than a gain. I like the concept very much, i just wish it was more lightweight.

Slashdot Mirror

Facebook May Dislike the Social Fixer Extension, but Many Users Love It (Video)

176 comments