Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Tracks the Status Updates and Messages You Don't Write Too

Jah-Wren Ryel writes "It turns out Facebook tracks the stuff that people type and then erase before hitting the post button. If you start writing a message, and then think better of it and decide not to post it, Facebook still adds it to the dossier they keep on you. From the article: 'Storing text as you type isn't uncommon on other websites. For example, if you use Gmail, your draft messages are automatically saved as you type them. Even if you close the browser without saving, you can usually find a (nearly) complete copy of the email you were typing in your Drafts folder. Facebook is using essentially the same technology here. The difference is that Google is saving your messages to help you. Facebook users don't expect their unposted thoughts to be collected, nor do they benefit from it.'"

163 comments

  1. Do they turn up in the downloads? by rvw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Facebook has an option to download all your data. Do these texts turn up in these downloads as well? If not Facebook violates EU law.

    1. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't find this in my data download.

    2. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      If not Facebook violates EU law.

      So what? It should be pretty clear that Facebook isn't run by moral people by now. You can pretty much assume that they violates every damn law they think they can get away with.
      When you deal with the local thugs they generally have some sense of morality, large corporations, not so much.

    3. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is that option?

    4. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Update, Dec. 16, 2013: This article was updated to clarify that it is the browser code, not Facebook, that reads whatever you type.

      From TFA above, it said that the data first collected is not directly from Facebook but from the client's browser. In other words, Facebook is taking advantage of browser's insight (data).

      Other information we receive about you
      We also receive other types of information about you:
      * We receive data about you whenever you use or are running Facebook, such as when you look at another person's timeline, send or receive a message, search for a friend or a Page, click on, view or otherwise interact with things, use a Facebook mobile app, or make purchases through Facebook.
      * When you post things like photos or videos on Facebook, we may receive additional related data (or metadata), such as the time, date, and place you took the photo or video.
      * We receive data from or about the computer, mobile phone, or other devices you use to install Facebook apps or to access Facebook, including when multiple users log in from the same device. This may include network and communication information, such as your IP address or mobile phone number, and other information about things like your internet service, operating system, location, the type (including identifiers) of the device or browser you use, or the pages you visit. For example, we may get your GPS or other location information so we can tell you if any of your friends are nearby, or we could request device information to improve how our apps work on your device.
      * We receive data whenever you visit a game, application, or website that uses Facebook Platform or visit a site with a Facebook feature (such as a social plugin), sometimes through cookies. This may include the date and time you visit the site; the web address, or URL, you're on; technical information about the IP address, browser and the operating system you use; and, if you are logged in to Facebook, your User ID.
      * Sometimes we get data from our affiliates or our advertising partners, customers and other third parties that helps us (or them) deliver ads, understand online activity, and generally make Facebook better. For example, an advertiser may tell us information about you (like how you responded to an ad on Facebook or on another site) in order to measure the effectiveness of - and improve the quality of - ads.
      (source: https://www.facebook.com/full_data_use_policy)

      From the quote above (from their web site), it pretty much covers the 'download all your data' part in a vaguely wording way (bulletin #1). I guess someone has to sue Facebook to see if their policies actually cover the way they are doing now.

    5. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So let's make a big deal so they can be spanked already.

      local thugs...generally have some sense of morality

      I don't know where you live but there's definitely no sense of morality from my local PD.

    6. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by jamiedolan · · Score: 2

      I just typed: livegoatseatchickenincanada, (into a status update box and into a comment box, but did not submit either one, I allowed it to sit for at least 30 seconds before leaving the page, more than enough time to send / save that text) a phrase which should be unique in my facebook archie. I've requested a copy of my archive be created / sent to me, I'll update this once I get a copy of my archive and search it for said text.

    7. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What makes you thing it ever was run by moral people?

      What makes you think that he thinks it was ever run by moral people?

      It should be pretty clear that Facebook isn't run by moral people by now.

      Rephrased: "By now, it should be pretty clear that Facebook isn't run by moral people."

    8. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by arisvega · · Score: 3, Informative

      Facebook has an option to download all your data. Do these texts turn up in these downloads as well?

      You know they don't. Who you search for, your browsing habits and clicks, none of that turns up either.

      I do not know what purpose this 'download all your data' option serves, but it is certainly not there to give you the option to actually download all data facebook has on you: it is something ridiculous like your name, your birthday and a couple of other useless stuff. It does not even include the messages you have sent and received.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    9. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which makes sense because they were never stored.

      The source article that the linked article refers to says that Facebook records the fact that you entered text but never posted it. It does not record the text.

      But after three levels of "telephone", we have this thread.

    10. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      not true. There was an article I read some time ago that showed an actual dump of a users activity used in an actual court trial. All of the partial stuff was there. It showed time stamps, every time the person hit backspace a bit and paused to think of which word, or even word ending, it was allllll there... in creepy ass detail.

    11. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or, just wait 'til your ads start showing results for "live goatse @ chicken.ca." Or, your friends and family get "jamiedolan likes `live goatse'" messages.

    12. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by bmimatt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's a Firefox plugin called 'Firebug'. It let's you see HTTP requests and responses. You could use that to see if what you type is sent immediately to FB.

    13. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Funny

      There was an article I read some time ago

      With impeccable citations like that, you must be correct.

    14. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      The fact it might be unciteable doesn't mean it's not true. These days, a lot of truth is hidden by 'secret' courts and non-disclosure.

    15. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So sue them.

      Equifax & Google too. Fry's, Costco and many others keep, share, or subscribe to databases on item returns. Sue them too.

      Sue everyone, for ALL the data they have on you. :)

      You'll NEVER get all the data (without an insider going crazy/sane) - but it would be interesting to see if court cases would criminalize some of this to increase the risk to companies that dabble in this.

    16. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      So it was a secret article on a secret news site?

    17. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only available in the EU

    18. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try Mark

    19. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by lgw · · Score: 1

      That's every bit as credible as a secret warrant issued by a secret court!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    20. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      I don't care, if this doesn't appear when I download my data from twitter, when it's agains EU law!

    21. Re: Do they turn up in the downloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I might also point out that in the US at least if there is a person under suspicion a warrant may be issued that allows a keylogger to be installed without the persons knowledge. It seems more likely that was how the partial posts were captured rather than via Facebook of the cpurt case you saw was real.

    22. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by jamiedolan · · Score: 1

      More than a day later and facebook still doesn't have my archive ready for me to download. Facebook lets you download your data unless you have too much data or they are too busy using their processor power to serve up spam, umm, I mean ads.

    23. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      Just curious, whatever became of this?

    24. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by jamiedolan · · Score: 1

      As of right now I never got a message from facebook that my archive was ready to download. I've gone in and re-requested the archive of my data be prepared for me to download. Hopefully this one will come....

    25. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      Lol I'd ask if anything ever materialized, but sadly, I believe I already know the answer -__-

    26. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by jamiedolan · · Score: 1

      Lol I'd ask if anything ever materialized, but sadly, I believe I already know the answer -__-

      I've requested my data to be downloaded from facebook 3 times now since my first comment here. Each time, I've gotten the following email from facebook promptly after I've made the request:

      " You recently requested a copy of yourFacebookdata. We'll send you another email with a link to yourdownloadwhen it's ready. For security reasons, the link will only work for a few days after being sent, so please monitor your email for our message. If the link doesn't work by the time you read your email, you'll have to restart thedownload. Learn what data may be in yourdownload:https://www.facebook.com/help/405183566203254 If you didn't request adownloadof your information, your account may be compromised. Please visit the Help Center to secure it:https://www.facebook.com/help/203305893040179 "

      So far I've not gotten a second email response from facebook any of the times that I've made the request. (Yes I've checked my spam filter). I do have a lot of photos and videos on facebook and my only real guess is that my account is larger than what their system is setup to export. Though I receive no error or message to that effect so it is merely a guess.

      I've had a similar problem with Google Takeout and have not been able to get a copy of all my Picasa Web Albums downloaded from their service. I've paid for storage space for years, but due to changes with Google+ and the fact that I'm paying for other online storage / backup services now, I want to download a full copy of all my albums from Google, which isn't working out.

      Luckily I do have a copy of all of my data that is on Google, however, I don't have it organized in the same fashion that I do on Picasa Web albums, thus the reason I had really wanted to download a copy of it.
      Sad to say unless something gets fixed with facebook I won't be able to complete our little experiment here.

  2. Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can see myself following a policy of "never type directly into a web browser, only copy and paste" in the near future. (And here's yet another reason to avoid "cloud" services and prefer local storage for anything personal.)

    1. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Save yourself the trouble and just disable JavaScript

    2. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I sometimes find myself doing this anyway just for the better text formatting and spell-checking available outside the browser.
      And also for those times when writing a large message just to have the site go "ERROR: TIMEOUT!" and eat your message.

    3. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Somehow I just can't picture vim phoning home like a proprietary software product.

    4. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Somehow I just can't picture vim phoning home like a proprietary software product.

      Oh yeah? Well, emacs doesn't phone home better, and hasn't been doing it longer!

    5. Re:Time to switch gears by chromas · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, that's probably the one function emacs doesn't have.

    6. Re:Time to switch gears by AG+the+other · · Score: 1

      It occurs to me, in view of Snowden's revelations and the presumption that anything that Facebook knows the NSA also knows, that we as a community could completely overload the NSA by daily opening a page and typing words like bomb, hack, DNS attack and poison into a post and then closing it.

      --
      Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
    7. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ET phones home.

    8. Re: Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. If you type something in and then decide not to post it, it is evidence that a) you are ambivalent, b) that you have more sense to say everything you think of c) the limits to which you can be trusted.

      Countries that include thoughtcrime still don't last very long, because those two rungs down the power ladder are under so much stress.

      Aside from that, if you write, then erase, that Darth Vader's nephew is seriously guilty of treason, then the Galactic Oversight Agency gets a heads up that it is already common knowledge, and maybe tells him, tone it down.

      Anyhow, from your lips to the GSA's ear.

    9. Re:Time to switch gears by egcagrac0 · · Score: 2

      Expect to see a plugin to helpfully upload your data to the cloud next Thursday.

    10. Re:Time to switch gears by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      One of the sites I visit is known for timing out. I'm always seeing someone post "WTF, I just lost a 20 page post", following by a dozen people saying "Write it in Word/Notepad next time".

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    11. Re:Time to switch gears by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's about on par with the suggestion that people can save a lot of money on gasoline by walking to work or cycling.

      My point being that the recommendation carries with it a set of disadvantages that heavily weigh against it when it comes to convenience. Much of the modern web today is not usable in any practical sense without javascript. If you can manage without it, that's nice... have a cookie. Just because you only visit websites that only present archaic interfaces doesn't mean everybody else does.

    12. Re:Time to switch gears by Arker · · Score: 1

      Some sort of a traitorous browser is required here and I think I would try to close that hole first.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    13. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the bleep ever thought it was a good idea to permit this behaviour in browsers, anyway? If I want to send data and/or request new data from the server, I'll click something. The browser is meant to serve me in this, not betray me.

    14. Re: Time to switch gears by mark-t · · Score: 1

      ... Darth Vader's nephew.... ???

      ... must resist ... temptation to nerdrage.

    15. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit. There is so many problem caused by JS it's not even funny. The web is just better with partial JS anyway. Noscript just rules, everything loads faster and it's safer.

    16. Re:Time to switch gears by gman003 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just for those who haven't memorized all the keybinds, "don't phone home" is c-m-X c-] by default.

    17. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ed phones home.

      FTFY

    18. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of NoScript? No, didn't think so.

      Please hand in your geek card on the way out, thanks!

    19. Re: Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darth Vader's nephew = Nephew of Skywalker, Anakin.

      Geez, try to keep up.

    20. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's why you should never let him into your closet.

    21. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever tried using Facebook with noscript blocking the JS? Facebook actively detects for noscript and nearly all of the facebook features are JS based.

    22. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's about on par with the suggestion that people can save a lot of money on gasoline by walking to work or cycling.

      My point being that the recommendation carries with it a set of disadvantages that heavily weigh against it when it comes to convenience. Much of the modern web today is not usable in any practical sense without javascript. If you can manage without it, that's nice... have a cookie. Just because you only visit websites that only present archaic interfaces doesn't mean everybody else does.

      People can save a lot of money on gasoline, and car maintenance and insurance and depreciation as well as on future hospital bills and healthcare costs, and live longer, if they walk or cycle. Your argument suffers from the fallacy of "ignored option," which is that people can have a car, keep it in the garage, and cycle or walk when weather and destination, etc. dictate they can do that. On days when it's raining, or a person knows he must pick up a passenger, obviously he'll take his car. Firefox (for example) has an extension called noscript, which can be used to disable all Javascript across the web, and also protects from cross-site attacks, etc., but gives you the option of enabling Javascript for those sites that you need to have it work on, and you can enable it domain or site by site. For example, on CNN I have most of the sites BLOCKED except those needed to serve videos. Those that track, serve ads, etc., I leave disabled.

      Mostly they're for products I don't want or need, so no one is actually harmed by my not viewing ads I never in fact agreed to view, and the ads are frequently annoying or insulting, so I have no qualms about blocking them, just like I don't feel bad when I use the toilet during a "commercial break" when they try to push various kinds of poison on me, like beer, (alcohol is toxic,) fast food, (heart disease is the number one killer, and fast food companies, like tobacco companies, don't care if their customers die, because they know they're not killing you early enough to prevent you having kids, and that those kids will be able to afford their shitty products because they're priorities, that is, they're made deliberately addictive, so people will buy them preferentially to superior products that besides tasting better, also won't kill them,) cars I can't afford or that I know are cheap and shitty, (BMW's on one end, and GM's on the other,) which will depreciate 10% of their supposed value the instant the new owner drives one off the lot, then another 10% in the first month after purchase...

      Anyway, I digress. As the owner of the computer the software is running on, I ultimately have complete authority over what it does, so if I don't want it running Javascript on a certain site, I should have the ability to stop it, as should you, reader, and a utility like Noscript gives you that capability. Also it reduces overall web traffic because all the data that would go back and forth between my computer and the 'Net is reduced by not having to run all that bullshit Javascript just to use my own computer to spy on me. Everyone should be using this.

    23. Re: Time to switch gears by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Darth Vader's nephew = Nephew of Skywalker, Anakin.

      GP's point is there's No Such Agnate.

    24. Re:Time to switch gears by Knuckles · · Score: 2

      Ever heard of NoScript? No, didn't think so.

      Please hand in your geek card on the way out, thanks!

      I'm using NoScript and it's a pain in the ass to do so.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    25. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You first. Send me a postcard from gitmo.

    26. Re:Time to switch gears by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The trouble with NoScript is that you end up having to make an (at least temporary) exception for almost every site you go to in order to use it at all.

      (Not to mention you also need exceptions for things like ajax.googleapis.com, which will surely integrate the functionality of googleanalytics.com if enough people start using anti-tracking technologies.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    27. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People said the same about Flash - which I will grant you is far from dead - but that didn't change the fact that once enough people were pushed away from Flash, alternatives were found/made/noticed.

      The same is true for javascript. Most of the fancy UI elements you love so much can be done in CSS3, although it requires more effort. Most of the stuff that simply can't be done without javascript is exactly the stuff we want to avoid - passing extraneous data, running executables etc.

      The only folk who really don't want to live without this shit are the folk who benefit from it - data miners and lazy-ass coders.

    28. Re:Time to switch gears by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that one wouldn't save money by walking or cycling... I'm saying that the suggestion that one do so is rarely a practical one because of the significant convenience that driving offers - which may easily be *worth* that amount of money anyways.

    29. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Save yourself the trouble and just disable JavaScript

      Very much this. That's what I do. Sites which don't work without just don't get my eyeballs.

      Sites which insist on Javascript just raise my suspicion. Better stay away from them, they must be up to something evil.

      Facebook? I don't need them.

    30. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone who doesn't accept javascript surely doesn't eat cookies.

      Q: What's black & white and red all over?
      A: A no-script / cookie-blocker enabled browser displaying a theme and content stripped web page displaying error messages that your browsing experience may have been affected by your privacy choices.

    31. Re:Time to switch gears by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Traditionally, websites that are the most affected by user not running flash are most often highly entertainment-oriented.

      Javascript, however, is used extremely often on all kinds of websites... not just for entertainment, but for online commerce in many industries, electronic banking, as well as simply getting useful functionality from many online bulletin boards and forums covering the entire gamut of possible subjects. Especially when you start looking at asynch javascript calls, and look at how the modern web is built, you'll find it's almost ubiquitous. Running noscript, I found I was having to make exceptions *constantly* just to have usable functionality in the various websites that I visited, making having it installed and operation far more of an inconvenience than it was worth.

    32. Re: Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anakin was an only child, so there aren't any 'known' nephews. I didn't think Owen Lars had any of his own kids, but even if he did they would be step-nephews/step-nieces. So at the same time, Luke was Anakin's son and step-nephew through adoption since Owen Lars was Anakin's step-brother who adopted Luke.

    33. Re:Time to switch gears by fisted · · Score: 1

      No way, it's also required for google autocomplete. Without that, what the fuck are we supposed to know what to google for?!

    34. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot doesn't even work properly with NoScript. Ever tried browsing all comments at -1 threshold with no Javascript? It's a real pain in the ass.

    35. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention, by default, it frequently updates and sends you to the author's website.

      I'd rather be tracked.

    36. Re:Time to switch gears by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 2

      If you can manage without it, that's nice... have a cookie.

      But.. I have cookies disabled :(

    37. Re:Time to switch gears by rsborg · · Score: 1

      I can see myself following a policy of "never type directly into a web browser, only copy and paste" in the near future. (And here's yet another reason to avoid "cloud" services and prefer local storage for anything personal.)

      Then add the Chrome browser location bar as well - since it's clear that Google is doing auto-completion against their search indexes. In fact, many "web 2.0" text entry boxes do auto-completion.

      Or you could simply accept that Google and Facebook are working hard to make the web a panopticon, and act accordingly.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    38. Re:Time to switch gears by Tetch · · Score: 2

      Yes, Javascript is used all over the web, but I find that in almost every case it is unnecessary. I use Noscript, and have a pretty small whitelist, comprising mostly just my bank, some webmail sites, and one or two travel ticket booking sites that just don't work at all without it. I temporarily whitelist quite a variety of sites whose functionality is enhanced by scripting, but only on those occasions when I actually need that extra functionality - and taking that moment to click on the Noscript icon to do the temporary whitelist really doesn't slow me down.

      One example is the BBC news website, which runs at least twice as fast with scripting disabled - so I keep scripting blocked there except when I actually want to watch the video associated with a news story.

      Facebook stays disabled except on those rare occasions when I actually venture into that cess-pit; I believe (not sure) that this preserves me from most/all of those attempts by Facebook to follow me round the Web ("Like" ... "Share this" ...).

      And all those tracker sites of which I'm aware (doubleclick, google-analytics, 2o7, etc.) stay on my Noscript 'Untrusted' list.

      All the forums I use regularly work just fine without scripting, albeit sometimes with a slightly clunky look'n'feel. Often a site's 'search' facility just reports "No hits" unless scripting is enabled, but I'm blessed if I know why. So on the rare occasions when I need to search the forum, I temporarily whitelist. Easy, quick.
      [BTW: I've authored plenty of websites with a search engine integrated, and scripting is just not necessary (at least with Ht://Dig).]

      There is just no need for scripting in the vast majority of cases - genuinely Web 2.0 sites excepted. I reserve a special level of contempt for sites that implement links with Javascript.

      I accept that large efficiencies of content data transfer are obtained when AJAX is used nicely (page components updated in situ instead of a complete retransmission of the entire modified page). However, as a capable security-minded sysadmin I'm also aware of that fundamental security adage: "If you let a Bad Guy run His program on Your computer, it's not Your computer any more", ((c) Microsoft). Javascript functions are programs, so to allow all websites to run Javascript on my computer is an act of faith that :

      1. 1) The site administrator is not a Bad Guy
      2. 2) The site administrator is competent enough to author and/or run the webserver platform in a sufficiently secure manner that it never gets broken into by a Bad Guy and infected with a silent drive-by malware download.

      I'm afraid I just don't have that level of confidence in the abilities and motivations of all 5 Gajillion website sysadmins out there - and they not only have to be that competent, but also remain that competent 100% of the time. Heh.

      I run without scripting enabled, I enjoy a significantly faster and more ad-free web experience, I visit all kinds of murky parts of the Web :), and it's literally years since any PC of mine acquired an infection - unlike the army of friends and relatives whose PCs I'm regularly called to disinfect. Sadly, I accept that most Ordinary Folks just cannot get their heads round this stuff, and are completely fazed by the idea of having to "authorise" anything that ever happens on their computer. This, my friends, is Our Fault - we should not have engineered a WWW that functions so dangerously.

      Dialog Box (n):
      A small window containing an 'Ok' button, a 'Cancel' button, and some text that the user will ignore.

      You know that almost all drive-by downloads (apart from those that target buggy embedded document viewers) exploit a flaw in the DOM that requires Javascript to leverage, right ?

      --
      If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.
    39. Re:Time to switch gears by mark-t · · Score: 2

      All the forums I use regularly work just fine without scripting, albeit sometimes with a slightly clunky look'n'feel.

      Just because you might be satisfied with a clunky user interface does not mean everybody else ought to be.

    40. Re:Time to switch gears by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      I've already considered that Google and other Web 2.0 have done this for years, since they will give you realtime results as you type.

      I'm less concerned about what I type than clicking a link that contains questionable queries and then searches with my identity. There's a million ways to make it look like someone likes something they don't.

    41. Re:Time to switch gears by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Thankfully, browser vendors realize that a key event can be as volitional as a mouse event (or a touch event). Keyboard control is an accessibility feature. You can't engineer network-enabled software completely away from potential for abuse without severely limiting its function. The abuse ultimately has to be stopped by social pressure.

      That said, there are opportunities for engineered **improvement** without destroying keyboard accessibility. A lot of browser restrictions already depend on certain kinds of volitional action to be invoked (think built-in popup blockers). I could imagine a solution where an attempt to access network resources as a result of key events prompts the user for permission, either temporarily or on a whitelist, even per "action" (e.g. form or field identity).

      Note that some keyboard accessibility is available without any JavaScript (as it should be) and should *never* be curtailed. Particularly the use of keys to press buttons or submit forms.

    42. Re: Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Padme had at least one sister. Are you *certain* she didn't have a son at any point? It's documented that she had two daughters. Remember, the EU is constantly evolving. Just because someone hasn't been mentioned *yet* doesn't mean they don't exist.

    43. Re: Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Lucas' response to all extended universe has been to pull down his pants, sit down on the EU content, open a newspaper, and take the biggest deuce ever. Lucas' response to the original trilogy is the same. Disney's view is irrelevant.

  3. Message saving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The difference is that Google is saving your messages to help you."

    Well, we hope at least. When Google's robot army kicks down my door for looking up subversive material, will we still be saying this?

    1. Re:Message saving by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      You should be more careful. When you realize Skynet actually evovled from google sometime before causing the dot com bust you will want the robots to be friendly to you.
       

  4. Thought process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Capturing a person's though process has a lot of value, sometimes more than the actual post written.

    Think of brand recognition, for a simple example. I like Pep... oops, I mean, Coke.

    1. Re:Thought process by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Capturing a person's though process has a lot of value, sometimes more than the actual post written. Think of brand recognition, for a simple example. I like Pep... oops, I mean, Coke.

      And that is quite harmless. Its if writing a draft "dear mum and dad I'd like to telly you I'm gay. I know its against your religious beliefs", then deleting it will result in adverts for gay support groups, or anything else that could give someone an idea of what might not have been said that there is a problem.

    2. Re:Thought process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or dear mum and dad, id like to tell you I am gay.. ere I mean dear mum and dad I would like to tell you I am happy you pointed me out to that gay hate group.

      No way the English language could ever get two words like gay (happy) and gay (loving members of the same sex) confused. Throw in the meme of the week and I can see all kinds of joy happening here.

    3. Re:Thought process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps someone types in "I'm going to fucking kill that son of a bitch", then delete it, realizing that was extreme thinking, but you are soon arrested by the thought police and stripped of your constitutional rights.

  5. Can we just call it... by Akratist · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..."Stasibook" and be done with it?

    1. Re:Can we just call it... by Akratist · · Score: 1

      Okay, sorry. I'll stop doing that in the future.

    2. Re:Can we just call it... by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      Okay, sorry. I'll stop doing that in the future.

      That's right. Much better to write out your post, then discard it and let the AC's try to find the auto-stored version!

      Seriously, though, don't worry about it. If that AC is too lazy to read subject lines, let them suffer in their own stew of self-imposed ignorance. Your original post was quite readable...and quite on point, I might add. :)

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    3. Re:Can we just call it... by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      To be fair, it is harder to read posts broken up that way. There's a reason most modern discussion software has eliminated non-parent post titles.

  6. Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Must kill Zuckerberg, Must kill Zuckerberg, Must kill ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
    Must post cat video.

  7. I bet this is a part truth by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The difference is that Google is saving your messages to help you."

    Well, we hope at least. When Google's robot army kicks down my door for looking up subversive material, will we still be saying this?

    Obviously drafts do help you ... but I wouldn't mind betting they also analyse the data and use it to predict your preferences in exactly the same way that Facebook does!

    1. Re:I bet this is a part truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but the "we save your drafts to the server" and "we mine all your date" are quite obvious and advertised with gmail, it actually has UI that tell you it sent the draft to the server

  8. Facebook doesn't store this stuff. by MarsLander · · Score: 5, Informative

    FTFA: "In their article, Das and Kramer claim to only send back information to Facebook that indicates whether you self-censored, not what you typed. The Facebook rep I spoke with agreed that the company isn’t collecting the text of self-censored posts."

    1. Re:Facebook doesn't store this stuff. by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Funny

      I guess Slashdot accidentally stored a hilariously inaccurate version of the summary.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Facebook doesn't store this stuff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Facebook rep I spoke with agreed that the company isn’t collecting the text of self-censored posts."

      How refreshingly ambiguous! Did the rep agree on the definition of "self-censored"? Did the rep specifically agree that Facebook isn't collecting the text that you type in a box on their page and then delete? I bet they didn't. Facebook is probably collecting the text that you typed and erased and the summary is accurate.

    3. Re:Facebook doesn't store this stuff. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, phew! I was afraid

      I wanna fuck fuck fuck Taylor and Selena and ruck them and lick their swetty boddies.

      Post? Nah

      was still in there somewhere. I'd be so embarrassed over the misspellings.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:Facebook doesn't store this stuff. by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Slashdot never lets basic facts get in the way of a good bitch-fest.

  9. Facebook is for dumb fucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ipse dixit

  10. Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Chrome tracks everything you type in the address bar. They call it the omni bar, since this feature allows you to search right from the address bar, and get instant results as you type. It is still creepy that the save this data for several weeks, and then keep an "anonymized" version permanently.

    Ironically, Canonical seems to get the most flack over this on Slashdot, not because they save any data (they don't), but because they send data to companies like facebook and google, which are the real problem.

    Thankfully, this is slashdot, so a sensible discussion on how to practically exist on the internet using all its features while maintaining one's privacy will take place.

    1. Re:Chrome by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Facebook doesn't provide any user value for transmitting any data (even metadata) about content the user doesn't end up posting. They don't even provide any *feedback* to the user that anything is happening. They also don't provide a mechanism for the user to opt-out. That makes it quite different from Chrome's behavior. I'm fairly sure the same points apply to Ubuntu.

  11. Only difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The difference is that Google is saving your messages to help you."

    Wrong, that's not the only difference. One other difference is that most email clients (and services) do it, and put that together with the fact that gmail tells you that it is doing it (so as other email clients and email services) makes it like a "normal" feature, expected even. And even another difference, is that with gmail I CAN access that draft after and either remove it or end the mail I was writing and get done with... in facebook I can do no such thing (and if it wasn't for this "news", people wouldn't even know such data existed or facebook was doing it).

    So, several differences now.. Do you know what's called something that has so many differences from each other? Not similar at all (or comparable). So yeah, nice try to make it more "trivial" than it should be.

  12. Time for an addon... by jonr · · Score: 2

    Time to create firefox/chrome add-on that types and then deletes all kinds of bullshit...

    1. Re:Time for an addon... by G-forze · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly my thoughts. This seems to be a good case for "poisoning the well", by using some simple Selenium script and a couple of e-books, for instance. Have the bot post random text snippets from the books to all kinds of people, events and pages, and then delete before sending. Make this data collection useless.

      --
      "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
    2. Re:Time for an addon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel like making one ?

    3. Re:Time for an addon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes

    4. Re:Time for an addon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use this to type in a book one sentence at a time. Then turn them in for copyright infringement.

    5. Re:Time for an addon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint: Use a CC licenced ebook.

  13. No kidding. by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    Facebook has become difficult to even type in the status box, because they're trying so hard to fill in suggestions and the like that the cursor jumps around. Half the time it jumbles up characters, likely because there's a crap-ton on javascript running with every keystroke.

    So everybody should periodically type "Mark Zuckerberg is a douchebag" and delete it. ;-)

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So everybody should periodically type "Mark Zuckerberg is a douchebag" and delete it. ;-)

      Oh damn. No one told me about the second step! I been doing it wrong for so long :(

    2. Re:No kidding. by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Facebook has become difficult to even type in the status box, because they're trying so hard to fill in suggestions and the like that the cursor jumps around. Half the time it jumbles up characters, likely because there's a crap-ton on javascript running with every keystroke.

      So everybody should, twice daily, type "Mark Zuckerberg is a douchebag" and post it ;-)

      There. FTFY.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  14. Facebook? Still? by macbeth66 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Social Media was so 2013.

    Get with it, its all about meeting up with people in real-time. Awesome. You make a call, talk to a person and arrange to meet up somewhere. Say for dinner or a drink. Maybe even a hook-up.

  15. Oxyomoronic by trifish · · Score: 1

    Using facebook in any way + caring about your privacy
    = mutually exclusive.

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

      Oxyo-moronic? Ah yes: Billy Mays yelling at you to be quiet about Oxy-Clean. That is kind of oxymoronic.

    2. Re:Oxyomoronic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really.

      You just have to know how to distrust them. Use a fake name, fill in garbage information, extensively use blockers, and run Facebook as the only thing you use a browser for and clean out cookies.

      Facebook has its uses, but one should not be overly trusting of them.

  16. Sorry to say that... by ExXter · · Score: 1

    but these are news from 2 years ago. /facepalm

  17. Multiple sites do it by koan · · Score: 1

    Huffingtonpost, Facebook, and I wouldn't be surprised if they all di .

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  18. Web browser plugin? by schneidafunk · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a great concept for a browser plugin.

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Web browser plugin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It already exists and it's called It's All Text!

    2. Re:Web browser plugin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Came here to say this, but you beat me to it. :)

      Pity it doesn't work with some custom input fields, though (Gmail comes to mind), as it looks for the element. Also, I believe it's Firefox-only.

    3. Re:Web browser plugin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, I forgot that slashdot eats html tags. The <textarea> element.

    4. Re:Web browser plugin? by alex67500 · · Score: 1

      Came here to say this, but you beat me to it. :)

      Pity it doesn't work with some custom input fields, though (Gmail comes to mind), as it looks for the element. Also, I believe it's Firefox-only.

      If you use Chrome you're sending your data to your google account all the time anyway...

      Probably best to go back to using Lynx ;-)

  19. Re:Facebook? Still? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I'm too fat to climb the stairs from my Moms basement.

  20. Re:Facebook? Still? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've gone back to writing letters. I'm forced to think carefully about what I'm going to write, and how I will say it. Furthermore, no-one will see what I wrote to my friend in a Google search 20 years from now.

  21. LOLROF when they criticize NSA by peter303 · · Score: 1

    FB and Google are far more insidious in what they collect and how they use it.

    1. Re:LOLROF when they criticize NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FB and Google use it to make money mostly by selling ads and are upfront about it (if you bothered to read the terms of service like you claimed you did when you signed up). NSA uses it to track, suppress, and arrest people as well as threatens people who talk about it. In what fucked up do you claim FB and Google are worse?

    2. Re:LOLROF when they criticize NSA by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I' missed the part where they arrest and threaten innocent people based on their actual surveillance data. Perhaps you could link to list - one which has a statistically-significant number of people; say, a list of even half the size of the people who are wrongly accused by local police in the US - of all the people they have wrongly harassed based on their investigations.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  22. A better policy by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't save anything as drafts. I send them ALL!

    Even the stupid ones!

    Then when you sit down the NSA, they are in a poor bargaining position and say "Look, you are talking to a guy who sends stupid emails. Does my behavior suggest I have anything to hide?"

    /NSA agent starts sweating ...

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
  23. Measuring distrust by duncanmcbryde · · Score: 1

    The actual paper this story is based off is quite interesting and worth a read (PDF). There's some really weird beat frequencies occurring in figure 2 that make me wonder if their data is valid. From the wording of both author's and Slate's article it appears that the collection of self-censorship data was started as a research project. If a user types 5 characters into a comment box, a boolean value is sent back to facebook if they decide not to continue, so it looks like its not sending what you type. I guess it's a good metric for measuring how much you distrust a person or system if you carefully revise statements before posting. Of course, perhaps if the self censorship data is interesting enough, Facebook's policy might change...

  24. WWWBoard by johnsie · · Score: 1

    Yes, and the WWWBoard layout for the comments on this site is sooooooo 1998

  25. Re:Facebook? Still? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    Social Media was so 2013.

    Get with it, its all about meeting up with people in real-time. Awesome. You make a call, talk to a person and arrange to meet up somewhere. Say for dinner or a drink. Maybe even a hook-up.

    Ok .. I have friends and family on 4 continents, spread across numerous timezones. Can you please suggest how I am supposed to meet up with them all in real time, and in a timely manner, and without having to be independent wealthy?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  26. Re:Facebook? Still? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He also suggests you might want to bang your mom.

  27. The benefits of Facebook by ZipK · · Score: 1

    Facebook users don't expect their unposted thoughts to be collected, nor do they benefit from it.

    The benefits given to you by Facebook for your unposted thoughts are on par with those for your posted thoughts: more tightly targeted advertising and the opportunity to receive special offers from Facebook's partners.

  28. What..why? by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    If you're going to go to the effort of typing something as insightful as "Mark Zuckerberg is a douchebag" I say go ahead and post it. What's he going to do, de-friend you?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  29. The clumsy way. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Slashdot seems to send your stuff to the server as you type it, too. My phone has lags from half a second to 5 seconds in response time between keypress and letter appearance, while my desktop (with much faster and more reliable) does not.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  30. Um...that's the whole idea? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Facebook is all about your public persona - your "brand" if you will (excuse me, I have to go wash my brain after typing that). It's exactly the opposite of privacy, and that's part of what makes it so great. I'm just lucky all of my young-and-stupid moments are only archived in old usenet threads.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Um...that's the whole idea? by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      Google helpfully archived those for you. There is stuff I posted back in the 90's on usenet that I thought would be long gone, that google can still find.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
  31. That is just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weak sauce. I started fixing it in the past. When the temporal wave hits this will fix itself.

  32. Re:Facebook? Still? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mumble

  33. Re:Facebook? Still? by Hatta · · Score: 1

    IRC.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  34. Re:Facebook? Still? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not in Google, but I am sure it will be in an NSA archive.

  35. Re:Facebook? Still? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I hear the computery folks have invented this thing called "electronic mail," which will let you send messages anywhere in the world without paying for airmail delivery (and fast, too)! They also made this thing called the "world wide web," where you can post things about yourself with special hypertext, and even pictures! You can even "instant message" family, with a live video feed (like seeing them on the television)! Thanks to the marvels of technology, one can communicate in real time with people all over the planet, without ceding control of every communication to advertizing/surveillance megacorporations.

  36. Anything you type by bobbutts · · Score: 1

    Can and will be used against you.

  37. Re:Facebook? Still? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    Meh...there's already an app for that.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  38. NEWSFLASH! by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 2

    Facebook and other social media highly deceptive and manipulative personal information brokers who have no moral code other purpose other than their own bottom elicit, compile, memorialize and sell excruciatingly detailed and ruinous personal information dossiers to the highest bidder including but not limited to all your future employers !

    Ha ha. Gotcha, sucker.

  39. Not the actual contents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No they don't, that headline is very misleading and is a huge misinterpretation of the paper. For a small portion of the userbase, Facebook detect IF they self-censor and just transmit that. They only see metadata, and not the actual contents of the message. You can see that if you open the browser developer tools and watch network traffic.

  40. Re:Facebook? Still? by Minwee · · Score: 1

    Social Media was so 2013.

    Real hipsters only communicate by fax anyway.

  41. Targetted ads by phorm · · Score: 1

    Will ads for gay support groups out you? There are plenty of other things that set this stuff off.
    Various pro-sports forums (wrestling in particular) tend to complain when they start getting gay dating ads, which is rather amusing since they're all contextual based on the content of the posts in th eforum...

  42. Re:Facebook? Still? by fredrated · · Score: 1

    That's awesome, when did you think it up?

  43. Re:Facebook? Still? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shhh, don't let the common squares know! I guess I'd better start brushing up on my telegraphy, so I'm not still faxing when all the wannabe posers show up STOP

  44. Re:Facebook? Still? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pick what's more important, family or a job. Sorry for the assholeish realism.

  45. Time for Facebook to get real and support Lynx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too much javascript produces usability problems, privacy issues, and gratuitiously excess CPU usage by browsers that when multiplied by millions of users has significant impact upon electrical power drawn from fossil fuel sources.

  46. Re:Facebook? Still? by anegg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm with you. The benefits of the evolution of communications into personal digital communications across the globe has been stolen by corporate interests and the government and used to create a mindfuck situation of unbelievable proportions. It seems like not long ago the US federal government was arguing about how new digital telephone switches so impacted their traditional ability to intercept calls that they need special legislative provisions that required interception capabilities to be built into all telephony switches or else they would lose their ability to investigate crime. Now we all wonder if we have any privacy at all, even in our own homes (how do you know your cell phone hasn't been programmed to perform electronic eavesdropping of your every conversation?), never mind in our on-line e-mails, and now possibly even in our thoughts about blog postings. Its enough to make one paranoid!

  47. This feature is not on purpose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >'Storing text as you type isn't uncommon on other websites...

    It's not some unique-feature that erased text is also stored with regular text: it's that EVERY keystroke is stored. Keylogging is now acceptable thanks to the blessings of commerce.

  48. Spooky.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spooky. Facebook did not have to do this. I wonder who put them up to this?
    Can you say NSA? I thought you could.

  49. Fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You

  50. Re:Facebook? Still? by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Ok .. I have friends and family on 4 continents, spread across numerous timezones. Can you please suggest how I am supposed to meet up with them all in real time, and in a timely manner, and without having to be independent wealthy?

    To get family on 4 continents takes some serious fucking money. I can't afford to travel to another continent, never mind live there. You can afford not to Facebook, but you just have different priorities.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  51. No it doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't use facebook, how is this possible?

  52. It's a feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook helpfully attempts to tag friends and people involved in conversations in posts while you type (so if you have a friend named "Justin" and type the word "just" it thinks you might be trying to tag him). So of course the draft messages are going to the server. What they do with this data afterwards, of course...

  53. OMG What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because "I really am behind on my project to blow up the White House..." is slightly different than "I'm really behind on my project to blow up the White House photos taken last year." are so obviously not going to be confused.

  54. Re:Facebook? Still? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To get family on 4 continents takes some serious fucking.

    Yep

  55. Re:Facebook? Still? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Commenting about how social media is pointless is so 2013.

  56. Re:Facebook? Still? by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure the USPS is outside the scope of automated NSA snooping. Which is cute in a way.

  57. Plugin to generate text by dhjdhj · · Score: 1

    Someone needs to write a browser plugin that would simply write/erase random (but grammatically correct) sentences into that text field automatically when your FB page is open but not in the current tab.

  58. Random sentence writer plugin needed by dhjdhj · · Score: 1

    Someone needs to write a browser plugin that would just generate random sentences into the text field, leave them there for a few seconds and then erase them again. Let it run when your FB page is in a background tab.

  59. Facebook, and Google are Evil Incarnate by bbsalem · · Score: 1

    If ever there was an emerging example of the inherit evils of Capitalism, it is Facebook and Google, and as people here suggest their main tool may be javascript. While I might be tempted to hide from javascript because of the abuse of privacy, I might be tempted to do just the opposite, make my visiablity bigger and, try to find the deeper vulnerabilities of the business model and exploit it.

    Facebook experimented ever so briefly with comment quoting a couple of years ago. That is the feature we have here on Slashdot where you can quote from a comment you want to reply to. It would be easy to do anyway, but you'd have to be careful to quote so that the autofil feature of the textarea widget didn't distroy your quoting. Quoting on Facebook might be disruptive enough because it is clear that they reason they don'r allow you to upload your own text is that they wannt total control over what is in that widget; it makes their data mining easier.. One thing I have done is to do screen captures of my own writing, rendered in a browser window and made into an image with screen capture. Then I upload the image to Facebook. That is several times more expensive to hem than if they allowed you to upload your own text files. There woild have to be a new layer of technology and even greater expense to them to use OCRt on an image, already aliased by their compression, I might add, to capture your world from that, and people who "abuse" their image uploading that way could have a significant economic impact on their policies.

    As I write, I realize that I can use the image upload of rendered text to literally illustrate how replying to a post from there with the features of a forum, like a USENET newsgroup, is superior for holding a discussion than a blog. This has become one of my greatest dissatisfaction with social media, Facebook, in particular, and blogs on all manner of websites. Discussions are one dimensional, they often go no where; people get terribly frusturated by the destractions that happen in normal discourse. The blog is a failure at anything that gets convoluted, any issue that generates more than a few replies, anything with sub-conversations. The far greater evil of Facebook and Google, because it has embraced the blog for data mining for marketers, is that it prevents useful discussion and debate which this nation needs very badily. Most citizens shy away from contraversary and debate, and I think that the reason is that technology interferres with it. The blog is the main culpret here and it is just as many leaders in government and business want it. Slashdot is a bit of an exception,and think of what you can do here that you can't do on most websites with a blog, and that you can't do this usefully on Facebook.

    The idea I have is to find the next comment I want to quote from and reply to; quote from the comment, write my reply, and convert it to an image and post the image. I know it might be hard to get a reply to my reply, but at least I could show in the image how contextual reply should be done, like it is here, and waste some more of Facebook's bandwidth. I am sure that the next time you want to post something to Facebook, you uploaded your remarks formatted anyway you like as an image, that Facebook might have to reconsider its editorial policy. Who knows, if we so desire we can put Facebook out of business this way.

  60. your creepy brother is watching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This website makes you accept cookies before accessing it.

    These cookies may reveal information about you your not aware of also.

    I don't know, this site may be the perfect tool if you where government...

    Easy way to know who has influence, voice, and dares to state their opinion.

    All the what, when, where, and who's in one spot collecting multiple ip / mac addresses.

    A cold monster working for the man we all bitch about the most on here.

  61. Plugin problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would only save your data in a secret system somewhere, then we'd have the same discussion under that post ;)