Facebook Can Block Content Without Explanation, Says US Court (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A U.S. court has ruled that Facebook can block any content posted to its site without explanation, after a Sikh group legally challenged the company for taking its page offline. U.S. Northern District of California Judge Lucy Koh ruled that the U.S. based rights group's encouragement of religious discrimination is illegal under the Communications Decency Act, which protects 'interactive computer services' providers by preventing courts from treating them as the publishers of the speech created by their users.

Comments

Yes please!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can they block the entire Facebook.com while they're at it?

Re:Yes please!

[UnknownSoldier]

We could only wish; we could only wish.

Re:Yes please!

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Censoring is the exclusive domain of the Zionist overlords. You, goyim, will shut up and obey.

On this I side with facebook

[damn_registrars]

I'm not a fan of their business model, nor do I have an account of any kind on their system. However, I side with them on arguing that they should be able to block any content they want. I don't see them as being any different from a newspaper editorial page, which has the freedom to publish anything it wants. Furthermore having your content rejected from facebook does not in any way prevent you from taking it elsewhere, so your speech is really not being oppressed.

Re:On this I side with facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think speech can ever really be "oppressed."

Re:On this I side with facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Communication forums normally have to decide which of two categories they fall into.

Option 1: Disinterested provider of opportunity. These forums have some coded rules of behavior or content, but otherwise do not filter anything. They accept no responsibility for the content that people post and let the users solve things until it crosses one of the (few and explicitly stated) lines.

Option 2: Active editors. These forums are cultivated, maintained, and very ban-heavy. As a side-effect, the forum can be held responsible for third-party content.

Slashdot it very actively type 1, to the point that the site operators do nothing but post sexist flamebait stories every week or so.
Looks like Facebook is trying to be a hybrid with the perks of both and consequences of neither.

Re:On this I side with facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

> Communication forums normally have to decide which of two categories they fall into.

No, they don't. Observation dictates that there is controlled and uncontrolled communication.

In every medium, communication is controlled by some matter and degree until the communication is lost (usually by distortion or inaccessibility).

Re:On this I side with facebook

[truck_soccer]

ISIS begs to differ.

Re: On this I side with facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

I see them more as the Newspaper Classifieds myself.

They take money, they should print content with only very limited and nuanced discrimination allowed.

Re:On this I side with facebook

[Opportunist]

Who gives a shit what a group of loonies think?

Re: On this I side with facebook

[Opportunist]

Huh? I have to admit I never used Facebook, but users have to pay now to use it? I thought it's free and they make a living by selling your personal data?

Re:On this I side with facebook

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Who gives a shit what a group of loonies think?

Loonies? No.

Angry masses of men with guns and bombs and controlled land and designs on a true state and government?

Hell yes.

Re:On this I side with facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a fan of their business model, nor do I have an account of any kind on their system. However, I side with them on arguing that they should be able to block any content they want.

I am OK with that under one circumstance. If Facebook wants freedom do do as they wishes then their service has to be optional.
That means that it has to be illegal for the government to require employees to communicate through Facebook or otherwise force people into that service.
Tax money should not be used to give control to private companies.

Re:On this I side with facebook

[metrix007]

Sounds like the NRA.

Re: On this I side with facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, users do pay a price for using it. One that I think has a somewhat high cost. But no, I see them as a commercial endeavor that is reliant on the content of others for their value, so unlike the Editorial page of a newspaper which generates its own content or compensates those it does primarily utilize, with the letters being a minor off-shoot, the content it uses is what makes their product.

Hence my seeing them as a Classifieds, and without getting into the specifics, that they should only use very limited and nuanced standards of discrimination when it comes to what they remove.

Re:On this I side with facebook

[Jack Griffin]

That all have tiny penises....

Re:On this I side with facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

But forcing the content elsewhere is practically the same as censoring it, due to Facebook's network effect. People who say that anti-censorship and free speech laws only apply to the government and not to private enterprises tend to forget why the government was hit by this legislation: because it has a practical monopoly on speech in that it can use its institutions make ideas invisible. The same thing applies to the big players in the market. For a lot of information services, like social networks, there are only two or three big players who together control the entire market. I think such companies should be forced to abide by the same anti-censorship and free speech laws that the government has to abide by.

Re:On this I side with facebook

[Opportunist]

Someone who blows himself up because his imaginary friend told him it's a good idea is a loony.

That's not negotiable.

Re:On this I side with facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

/. needs more comments like this.

Re:On this I side with facebook

[cpt kangarooski]

Option 2: Active editors. These forums are cultivated, maintained, and very ban-heavy. As a side-effect, the forum can be held responsible for third-party content.

Not true in the US (other than, potentially, with copyright issues and the like).

Remember, the CDA was intended to encourage providers to engage in censorship. Since the previous state of affairs was as you suggest, the way that they were encouraged to censor was to remove liability for material posted by third parties. But since many sites don't care, and the CDA protects them fully no matter what they do or don't do, it didn't really work out. Also other parts of the CDA turned out to be unconstitutional.

Re:On this I side with facebook

[Gr8Apes]

Still a bunch of delusional idiots.

Re: On this I side with facebook

[bws111]

What makes you think that a newspaper, or anyone else, has to publish ads with 'only limited and nuanced discrimination allowed'? The only possible restriction might be that they can't discriminate against a person based on some proscribed criteria, but they can 'discriminate' at will against any content they choose.

Re:On this I side with facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

So according to your logic, it would be fine if Google censored any politically incorrect religious-themed speech?

Just because it's their right legally, it doesn't mean that it's anything other than disgusting to censor.

Re:On this I side with facebook

[swalve]

Agree completely. It's their fucking website, we are just guests.

Re:On this I side with facebook

[swalve]

See, there is your problem. ISIS is meaningless. There is barely 10,000 of them. If the US collectively farted, they would sufficate. Who benefits the most from ISIS? The republican party.

Re: On this I side with facebook

[swalve]

What personal data? They only have access to what the users give them. It's not personal if you publish it on the internet.

Re:On this I side with facebook

[swalve]

When/where does that happen?

Re:On this I side with facebook

[Alumoi]

Someone who does self-abasement in order to atone for some real or imagined wrongdoing because his imaginary god told him it's a good idea is a loony.
That's not negotiable.

Re:On this I side with facebook

[gl4ss]

are you saying that google doesn't? how about you go google some isis recruitment pages..

Re:On this I side with facebook

[Agripa]

Facebook was the only web site site to survive the Web Wars. Now all web sites are Facebook.

And if you don't like the free service....

[Anonymous Coward]

You can leave and not use it.

Problem solved!

Re:And if you don't like the free service....

[MyAlternateID]

You can leave and not use it.

Problem solved!

Never using Facebook for any purpose and blocking all of their tracking buttons has always worked well for me. I can't say I've ever missed them.

I hope eventually people will figure out that Facebook is but one way to communicate, in a vast global network with a great many ways to communicate, owned by a marketing company that does not (and arguably cannot) have their best interests at heart.

Says you!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Speech includes the right not to say something, and that's literally pretty much the end of it. If their TOS had some kind of guarantee that, as long as you don't violate some set of subjects, they might have a case.

But as "printer", they don't have to say jack squat. The "wedding cake" lawsuits are shaping up this way -- a cake in general with two grooms, must do. With particular phrases, nope.

Re:Says you!

[tompaulco]

Freedom of the press does not mean that a private company has to print what you want them to. It means that the government can't interfere with your right to say it.
As far as the other, a business has a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason or no reason. In fact, no reason is preferred, because people will sue you if you do it for a reason. Yes, even to refuse service to Police Officers, nursing mothers, doe-eyed orphans dying of cancer, as idiotic as that may be. Everybody else can also then refuse to do business with them because of that. Such is the nature of the system.

Re:Says you!

[MyAlternateID]

But as "printer", they don't have to say jack squat. The "wedding cake" lawsuits are shaping up this way -- a cake in general with two grooms, must do. With particular phrases, nope.

Both are instances of whether a private organization can decide whether or not to interact with a recipient of services in ways said organization does not desire to.

Either both should have this discretion or neither should have it. As believe it's generally wrong to force people to do things they don't wish to do (whether I support their reasons or find them reprehensible), I believe both Facebook and the wedding cake makers should have a choice. Both should also accept any public backlash resulting from the way they exercise this choice.

Re:Says you!

[cfalcon]

> As far as the other, a business has a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason or no reason.

Civil Right Act of 1964 says otherwise.

Re:Says you!

[Anonymous Coward]

INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Re:Says you!

[ShanghaiBill]

a business has a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason or no reason.

This is not true in America, or the EU. I doubt if it is true anywhere else either.

Re:Says you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Further, as a world-wide entity they must operate within the legal bounds of the host country in those instances that they are within that host country. Google has had a hard time with China because of this due to the censorship the government imposes and the general freedom of search that Google allows. Automakers have to comply with local emissions and safety standards if they want to do business in a country (e.g. VW and the EPA stuff). This also allows all that fun tax evasion for corporations.

If speaking out against the government is illegal in a particular country, then it is Facebooks legal duty to ensure that those sorts of pages disappear from within that countries borders.

Re:Says you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Businesses have the right to refuse service for whatever reason they want. But if they refuse service because of your skin color or sexual orientation, not only are they assholes, but they are breaking the law. So if you own a business and want to be a bigoted asshole, just deny the service and give them a different reason.

Re:Says you!

[tompaulco]

> As far as the other, a business has a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason or no reason.

Civil Right Act of 1964 says otherwise.

Okay, so you only have the right to refuse service to anybody who is a white male. That doesn't seem like it should be legal.

Re:Says you!

[Coren22]

As other's have noted, you are not correct. I wonder if they could get by this way though:

All wedding cakes cost $10k, heterosexual couples can use a coupon that offers a $9500 discount off the retail price of a cake. It is technically not discrimination as you will sell a cake to anyone, it is the discount that doesn't apply to everyone. Then if the homosexual couple wants to pay the price, just sell them the cake and donate the extra profit to your local church or something.

Re:Says you!

[Anonymous Coward]

> As far as the other, a business has a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason or no reason.

Civil Right Act of 1964 says otherwise.

But not if you're a Muslim refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Some animals are more equal than others.

Re:Says you!

[DaveyJJ]

No it wouldn't get by. This exact practice has been ruled discriminatory in several cases. Several restaurants throughout the US over the past decade have found out that offering "10% off meal on Sunday's, when you bring in today's church bulletin" is a fast way to get a lawsuit happening and all of them have been forced to stop it. Offer 10% off to everybody or to nobody, but you can't offer pubic services to one group (Christians) and not the same to another group (anyone else who doesn't attend Sunday church) unless you're a private club. Again, it's a matter that if you offer something to the public, you can't pull this sort of discriminatory shenanigans.

Re:Says you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so you only have the right to refuse service to anybody who is a white male. That doesn't seem like it should be legal.

Nope, but thanks for trying the, "won't someone please stop and think of the poor, white male!" card.

Re:Says you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Check again. If you refuse service to someone because they are a white male, you are discriminating based on race and gender. The text of the law makes no distinction about what race or gender, so white men have exactly the same protections as any minority group you want to name.

I'll preface the next bit by saying I have no issues with Asians as a people. Specific individuals, most definitely, but not as a group.

The problem comes from either lopsided and/or incompetent enforcement of agencies charged with upholding these provisions. For example: I worked for a well-known computer equipment manufacturer based in Taiwan. Their US operations was easily over 90% Asian. Most of them either Chinese or Taiwanese in either nationality or ethnicity. As a white male, I made a complaint about being the subject of harassment from my Asian coworkers and the company claims my asking my coworkers to stop harassing me is harassment towards my coworkers and fires me. I file a complaint with the California DFEH and the company submits its HR Investigation Report as evidence. In this report is a line, written by the HR drone who did the "investigation" about how she thought I made a complaint of being discriminated against and there's also absolutely nothing to sustain the complaint made against me by an Asian female employee until the day AFTER my being fired when suddenly she's claiming to be afraid for her life. There's already about three different ways the company violated the law that almost anyone can figure out. DFEH closes my case claiming it has insufficient evidence to prove a violation of the law and did so in direct violation of its own publicly available rules. Based on my experience, which I admit is just one example, I have no problems believing it's more of a case of general incompetence and/or just people who don't care and it doesn't matter if you're white, black, asian, or anything else. If you don't have something that is basically a smoking gun proving your case beyond any level of doubt, they are perfectly willing to just let your case collect dust until the statute of limitations expires no matter who you are.

Re:Says you!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you can refuse them for "no reason".

I used to work for a used car dealorship, and we did refuse service to a black dude who looked like he was dressed like a hardcore "gangsta" that just crawled out of a gutter, came into our shop, and asked if we could finance him on a used car. Now, the reason wasn't because he was black, but because loaning money to somebody like that is just asking for a default and you probably never see the car again. Or worse, it gets impounded because it was used to sell drugs out of and THEN the guy stops paying.

Is it legal? Absolutely, PC police be damned.

Re:Says you!

[MyAlternateID]

No it wouldn't get by. This exact practice has been ruled discriminatory in several cases. Several restaurants throughout the US over the past decade have found out that offering "10% off meal on Sunday's, when you bring in today's church bulletin" is a fast way to get a lawsuit happening and all of them have been forced to stop it. Offer 10% off to everybody or to nobody, but you can't offer pubic services to one group (Christians) and not the same to another group (anyone else who doesn't attend Sunday church) unless you're a private club. Again, it's a matter that if you offer something to the public, you can't pull this sort of discriminatory shenanigans.

How exactly do they define a "private club" for this purpose? Is any arbitrary membership criteria acceptable?

Re:Says you!

[Anonymous Coward]

The card we're playing is "people should be treated equally regardless of race or gender."

Somehow this idea is outrageous to the SJW kiddies, because everyone knows those CIS white males are literally satan and should be put into camps.

Re:Says you!

[Opportunist]

That would be interested, to see two groups that enjoy being the victims, guilt tripping everyone around them, clash.

If I get to choose, could it be Muslims vs. Feminists? They have so many touching points that watching this should be awesome!

Re:Says you!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

But as "printer", they don't have to say jack squat. The "wedding cake" lawsuits are shaping up this way -- a cake in general with two grooms, must do. With particular phrases, nope.

Both are instances of whether a private organization can decide whether or not to interact with a recipient of services in ways said organization does not desire to.

Either both should have this discretion or neither should have it. As believe it's generally wrong to force people to do things they don't wish to do (whether I support their reasons or find them reprehensible), I believe both Facebook and the wedding cake makers should have a choice. Both should also accept any public backlash resulting from the way they exercise this choice.

I agree with this. I am just stating the current law as I understand it. The expansive "interstate commerce" abomination, fortunately cannot touch the First Amendment. A law is a law is a law regardless.

In the cake case, I submit putting two grooms on it would rise to expression in any other context.

Re:Says you!

[Anonymous Coward]

If I get to choose, could it be Muslims vs. Feminists? They have so many touching points that watching this should be awesome!

One that I find quite amusing is the case of Kimberly Nixon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Kimberly Nixon, a transgendered woman, was not allowed to work at a rape crisis centre because she was not born female.

The legal precedent has generally been that a transgendered woman was legally female, but apparently not...

Re:Says you!

[Anonymous Coward]

But not if you're a Muslim refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

He couldn't help it. He doesn't bake cakes on order.

Try the Baklava though.

Re:Says you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you found the same loophole that everyone else found ages ago.

Realistically, you denied the purchase because he was a black man. You could have very easily required a credit check and failed/passed the guy based upon the results, but instead you took a look at him, decided he was a thug based upon his appearance alone, and sent him on his way.

However, without showing a very clear pattern of doing this on a long timescale, and without someone bringing suit about it, the dealership is not going to run into any consequences.

The same basic rules apply to at-will employment laws. In practice, it's pretty easy to discriminate against people without getting caught.

Re:Says you!

[fustakrakich]

If I get to choose, it would be Muslims vs. Fembots... Oh behave!

Re:Says you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Equal treatment just means your "CIS white males" stop getting passively preferential treatment. They still have the right to a service that are made available to everyone under the same terms. If you were to find such a case made out of malice, *that* would be something.

Re:Says you!

[Gr8Apes]

How exactly do they define a "private club" for this purpose? Is any arbitrary membership criteria acceptable?

I'm sure you have to sign something.

Re:Says you!

[Vegan Cyclist]

What DaveyJJ said, plus: what happens when a wealthy gay couple decides to take this guy up on the offer? I'd be surprised $10k is enough for a devout homophobe to sell a cake and 'break his morals'...haha.. It'd be an awesome sight to see tho.

Re:Says you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Appearances are not usually deceiving...Dress like a worthless piece of shit, expect to be treated like one (ignorant yes racist no).

Re:Says you!

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Usually ap private club is one that requires its patrons to actively apply for membership, and in some states requires a membership fee (whcih could be a nominal $5). Then there's rules on maintaining a list of members.

Re:Says you!

[Anonymous Coward]

> But not if you're a Muslim refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Judaism, Islam and Christianity all teach that the Old Testament's words, most strongly condemning sodomy, are the very words of the One God, therefore unquestionable. To force a "desert monotheist" to serve un-naturals is a violation of the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion.

Re:Says you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Call us when white males are actually an oppressed group, as opposed to some just feeling oppressed because they're not quite as privileged as their fathers were.

Re:Says you!

[JimFive]

I once went to a "private" blues club, it required paying a "membership fee" and filling out "application form". The club was private so that it didn't need a liquor license. The membership fee was the equivalent of a cover charge and the membership period was for 1 day. So, the only difference was the membership form which was essentially a mailing list.

I think the membership fee and the signup sheet were required to maintain the fiction of it being private. I don't know if they had memberships that were longer than 1 day.
--
JimFive

I'm guessing that someone doesn't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA: "In a statement, Pannun wrote that the Silcon Valley firm should have at least offered an explanation to SFJ as to who ordered the blocking – “Facebook owes an explanation to its users after or before blocking and removing the content which is guaranteed under freedom of speech.”"

Someone clearly doesn't understand how freedom of speech actually works. Big hint fellas, it only means the government can't regulate it, not that others cannot do so.

Re:I'm guessing that someone doesn't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

However, it doesn't mean that facebook isn't encouraging censorious culture.

Re:I'm guessing that someone doesn't understand

[MyAlternateID]

FTA: "In a statement, Pannun wrote that the Silcon Valley firm should have at least offered an explanation to SFJ as to who ordered the blocking – “Facebook owes an explanation to its users after or before blocking and removing the content which is guaranteed under freedom of speech.”"

Someone clearly doesn't understand how freedom of speech actually works. Big hint fellas, it only means the government can't regulate it, not that others cannot do so.

... which is why I believe that Pannun was arguing this on moral grounds. Saying something "should have" been offered isn't the same as saying "there is a law compelling you to offer" it. That it was guaranteed against government censorship under the 1st Amendment means Facebook had no obligation to remove it, thus this was an arbitrary decision, thus there must have been a reason, ergo that reason could have been offered.

Though I know it's trendy to assume other people are complete morons who don't understand basic things, and never to consider that perhaps you may have failed to understand where they're coming from or what they actually meant. It's very rare that there is one and only one single way to interpret written words. Slashdotters tend to choose whichever one makes the writer look more stupid and themselves more clever, never considering other options. It's childish.

Re:I'm guessing that someone doesn't understand

[Coren22]

It means even less in India where this occurred. I am not sure if they have a "freedom of speech", and I am guessing that it works a little differently over there as compared to the US.

Re:I'm guessing that someone doesn't understand

[MyAlternateID]

Awww... I thought *I* had APKs attention. Seems you're his new favorite. *pouts*

Re:I'm guessing that someone doesn't understand

[Coren22]

I do my best. It is funny to go through and minimize his posts every morning to see if I got any replies.

Bad summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't figure out what was going on from this ridiculous summary. Here's what the article says about what's going on:

SFJ, a US based rights group, had filed the lawsuit against Facebook Inc. and claimed that the social media giant blocked its page at the behest of Indian government because of its outspoken campaign against government's "persecution of Sikhs a religious minority and advocating for Sikh referendum in the Indian state of Punjab."

[...]

SFJ lawsuit had also requested the court to issue an order compelling Facebook to produce all its communication with government of India related to SFJ's page and to issue an order reinstating access and enjoining Facebook from blocking right group's online content in future. The plaintiff said that on or about May 1, 2015 Facebook blocked access to SFJ page in India without prior notice or an explanation.

I also note that Koh is the one who ruled for Apple against Samsung on those ridiculous design patents.

Re:Bad summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Think a little, a name Koh, what does it sound like?
What to you think from what tribe a person with that kind a name comes from?

Of cource she rules that ... zukerberg ... has done nothing wrong.

Re:Bad summary...

[mrclevesque]

"I couldn't figure out what was going on from this ridiculous summary"

I had the same problem.

And if the accusations against facebook are true, they definitely want to keep it quiet -- how would they be able to explain what looks like helping the Indian government marginalize a minority.

Also it's funny how the write up "Judge Lucy Koh ruled that the U.S. based rights group's encouragement of religious discrimination" makes it sound like the Sikhs are the ones with an ethics problem.

Freedom of the press belongs to...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the owners of the presses. Still.

If Facebook dominates eyeballs and Facebook gets to moderate content - so, for example, a nipple is verboten, while racist "Britain First" gets to spam its crap ad inf. - then Facebook effectively sets the agenda. It doesn't matter that someone can set up a competing service in theory, because unless people use those competing services in practice, they might as well not exist. And to know that competing services are worthwhile, you have to be aware of what you're missing. And you're not aware of what you're missing if Facebook removes the first sign of it.

tl;dr Over-simplified guarantees of freedom of speech, as the First Amendment provides in practice, usually end up providing the same breadth of message as in a centrally censored environment: those with control of the publication media continue to set the agenda. Political breadth is, perhaps counterintuitively, wider in countries with fewer negative rights but greater limits on corporate power.

Freedom of Speech ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of Speech does not include the right to force others to say it for you.

It also does not include the right to force people to listen.

Facebook? You still use that?

[Ragnarok89]

Given their flagrant disregard for my privacy, I can't say I'm surprised.

Why is this surprising

[tommyjcarpenter]

It's their website. It's free. They can block whatever they want. You are not paying for a QoS guaranteeing content. They can delete all your shit if they feel like it. I don't understand this debate.

Re:Why is this surprising

[MyAlternateID]

It's their website. It's free. They can block whatever they want. You are not paying for a QoS guaranteeing content. They can delete all your shit if they feel like it. I don't understand this debate.

To really understand it, you would first have to grok this insidious entitlement mentality first perfected by the Baby Boomers with their love of government "entitlements" (as they are literally called) and lack of concern for the long-term ability (of their grandchildren) to pay for them, handed down to the younger generations in the form of "you're a special snowflake no matter what" and later expanded to "you must have high self-esteem, no matter what, and it must never be conneced to any regard for whether you have actually accomplished anything".

Consdiering the entitlement mentality and its gradual entrenchment over several generations, it's no wonder that people act shocked that Facebook has goals other than constantly pleasing and catering to them. If they really wanted to guarantee a certain set of behaviors from Facebook, they should obtain a written contract to that effect.

Re:Why is this surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya right. And if Facebook started blocking Republican party content because the Obama Government asked them to you would be frothing at the mouth about big government persecution.
 
But i guess you don't mind the Indian Guberment censoring people.

Have whatever opinions you want but try to be consistent and intellectually honest with yourself.

This story is "Big Goverment uses state power to censors critics". How do you feel about that headlines?

Does anyone actually proofread these?

[Anonymous Coward]

"U.S. based rights group's encouragement of religious discrimination is illegal under the Communications Decency Act"

I really don't think that statement reads how you meant it. It really sounds like you're claiming the Sikh group encourages religious discrimination. Granted, the stack wrote the original line, not Slashdot, but republishing it just perpetuates this confusion.

Re:Does anyone actually proofread these?

[HiThere]

Until I encounter some more plausible explanation, I'm going to consider that an intentional error. It reads that the Sikh's are doing the discriminating, but the rest of the article reads that they are the ones being discriminated against. So to single that sentence out for republication is at best misleading, and reasonably considered malicious.

Now there may be some evidence not mentioned that would justify that statement, but as it wasn't mentioned, I don't feel it's reasonable to include in the summary. And, in fact, consider that malice is as likely as carelessness.

Isn't Facebook a private company?

[Morpeth]

Basically isn't that the core of it? Regardless of one's feelings about it, doesn't FB have the right to dictate what content they allow?

First Amendment issues might be different is this was a gov't run/controlled site, right? Oh wait... um, hmmm...

Re:Isn't Facebook a private company?

[flink]

Basically isn't that the core of it? Regardless of one's feelings about it, doesn't FB have the right to dictate what content they allow?

First Amendment issues might be different is this was a gov't run/controlled site, right? Oh wait... um, hmmm...

Sure, but by exercising editorial control, they now bear an increased responsibility for the content they do allow to be posted. You can't have it both ways: either you are a disinterested common carrier that provides a medium of transmission, or you are an active curator who is liable for what your users post.

Re:Isn't Facebook a private company?

[Anonymous Coward]

"you are an active curator who is liable for what your users post"

I like the above. I am happy FB rejected this group (I don't care what they are in favor of or against), but by doing so FB is now liable for the ton of pirate content on its site... Including a lot of our content that before it could claim it knew nothing about....

Re:Isn't Facebook a private company?

[KingMotley]

Facebook has never been a common carrier. Like all websites, they can (and do) remove content when it infringes copyright. Unlike your ISP or phone which they don't monitor the content (and don't have the capabilities to monitor it all in real time -- supposedly).

Re:Isn't Facebook a private company?

[Rhywden]

You obviously never happened to notice how they deal with nudity of any kind. That's a bit more editorial control than mere copyright watch.

Re:Isn't Facebook a private company?

[AHuxley]

It depends on the public setting. If everyone is invited in for free and your local city, state, federal gov has a 2.0 site with public comments allowed?
Then some freedom of expression and record keeping that might just fully cover public comments made :)
A government selecting to use part of a social media and web 2.0 product cannot then fall back on the private sector to remove freedoms before during or after speech if the gov set up a fancy web 2.0 site and invited people in to comment.

Re:Isn't Facebook a private company?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. No, no, no no...no.

Facebook has this legal document. It's called "Terms of Service". If you do anything that breaks the Terms of Service, they reserve the right to do anything they can against you, such as delete the thing you posted, delete your page, or even delete your account.

As far as I can tell, we don't know why Facebook blocks the page, because no one has asked why. So maybe it breaks the ToS. Maybe it doesn't - if it doesn't, perhaps it was a false positive caught by an automated blocking script that focused on certain words being used, and decided to block it until they could put human eyes and judgment to it.

In the original article, the Sikh group *starts* by issuing a Cease and Desist order to Facebook tech support, and they were subsequently upset when Facebook responded with a generic message and a number they could call. This would be like emailing support@spacex.com and getting pissed off that Elon Musk didn't respond to you. The Sikh group didn't call, and instead decided to sue Facebook. Facebook is going to win, and it will suffer no fallout for this. Users of Facebook do not have a right to free speech on Facebook. You waive that right when you click the checkbox saying "I understand and agree to follow these rules".

Halfway to a monopoly, but not there yet

[gurps_npc]

Let's face it, Facebook is not quite a monopoly. There are other, similar social networking sites out there, and other people can freely start their own. They don't deserve the extra scrutiny that monopolies have.

That said, people that treat Facebook as a requirement for using their internet services (dating websites are notorious for doing this) are scumbag douches that deserve to fail. It's the web, not Facebook, and you are overcharging and limiting your user base by doing this.

If you need people to use real names, offer the option of paying a $1 credit card fee on signup. That gives you real names, without the huge privacy invasion called Facebook, which is worth far more than $1. (estimates are over $17 per female user, and $13 per male user. Source: http://adage.com/article/digit... )

Re:Halfway to a monopoly, but not there yet

[david_thornley]

I can't get the benefits I get from Facebook in any other way. It's the network effect.

Re:Halfway to a monopoly, but not there yet

[Jack Griffin]

Just because the ask you to use your real name doesn't mean you have to.
I have a couple of FB accounts with nothing on them, and that I never log onto, purely for using on those websites that want to use FB accounts to log in with.

Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sexual orientation is NOT a protected class under U.S. law. You can be fired from your job or denied services and/or accommodations in most of the country. There are some protections in some states or localities, but in most of the country it is still legal for Christians, Muslims, or the simply ignorant to persecute members of the LGBT community.

Re:Wrong.

[Viewsonic]

Depends, many cases have gone the sexual harassment route and won. But it has to be overtly harassing, and not a one time off handed remark. If someone is being completely vile and screaming anti-LGBT stuff at you, cases have been won.

Re:Wrong.

[Kurrelgyre]

I'm pretty sure grandpost is right that being terminated for sexual identity or orientation isn't illegal across the countr. While your statement on harassment is probably true, it's a separate matter.

Lets not stop there :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they can also BAN the Political Racisit Anti Obammy Crap Photo Memes from posters like BOB or Don or PeoPLEoFAMURIKA..

Well...

[s.t.a.l.k.e.r._loner]

The freedom to say or post what you want is protected. The freedom to do so on Facebook (a website owned by a company that isn't you) is not protected.

Re:Typical Liberal Thinking

[Opportunist]

Dude, please, take your pills. I know you think your doctor wants you to so he can implant those chips into you that are contained inside those pills, but trust me, you'll feel so much better after taking them...

Facebook is for Suckers. Just Post on Slashdot!

[Irate Engineer]

Facebook sucks. You can post any old shit on Slashdot, and it always had a Dislike button (we call it Mod -1 Troll, but it is the same thing).

Here you have freedom to let your inner Troll run free! Many here think I am a complete asshole, but Slashdot keeps giving me mod points for my "contributions". It's so empowering!

Re:Typical Liberal Thinking

[david_thornley]

The company I know about who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, in addition maligned the couple on the net, and organized harassment. That can be worth suing over, and that's what the bakery was sued for.

Good for you

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm never creating a FB page ever again, after my first (quite popular) page was taken down without explanation. Any business is absolutely foolish to put ANY effort into building a page on a platform they don't have full control over.

Except when it comes to you asking them to remove

[future assassin]

something. I had to spend hours trying to find a contact form where I could attach a screen shot of 1 star reviews on my FB business page that stated I sell weed at my store from several fake accounts Found some forms but they would not post finally found one. Got a reply a few days ago basically saying nothing and to block those people. Well that's great but still wont remove reviews that say I well weed I my store.

Since I already spend $750 advertising on FB I decided to keep my page for now and disable the reviews. Once my site is finished I'll be removing the FB for good same with Google+ Not sure what they did but the page I keep up to date synched with FB posts no longer shows on searches but a new one I didn't create is showing with no page updates.

Seriously social media is useless for small business. I'd get better results standing on a corner of a busy street giving out flyer.

Re:Except when it comes to you asking them to remo

[Jack Griffin]

Seriously social media is useless for small business.

You say that as if it is new information. FB has always sucked, and always will.

Facebook censoring private messages

[sjukfan]

I wouldn't mind if it was just in public messages they blocked stuff. But since they censor private messages I don't even see it useful as a internet messenger.

So they condone everything they don't block?

[dsmatthews9379]

You can't have it both ways surely? If they want to censor content then they have to accept that allowing other content is condoning it's message.

Re:So they condone everything they don't block?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Absolutely. There's a legal document, called "Terms of Service" which tells you the type of content that Facebook condones. This same document is the one that says "You do not have freedom of speech on this site. You waive that right by posting content here."

It's likely the group in question posted something that broke the ToS, but it's impossible to know. And it's impossible to know, because they never *asked* why their page was blocked, they just emailed support@facebook.com a cease and desist letter and figured that would solve the problem.

Re:Except when it comes to you asking them to remo

[Irate Engineer]

something. I had to spend hours trying to find a contact form where I could attach a screen shot of 1 star reviews on my FB business page that stated I sell weed at my store from several fake accounts Found some forms but they would not post finally found one. Got a reply a few days ago basically saying nothing and to block those people. Well that's great but still wont remove reviews that say I well weed I my store.

Since I already spend $750 advertising on FB I decided to keep my page for now and disable the reviews. Once my site is finished I'll be removing the FB for good same with Google+ Not sure what they did but the page I keep up to date synched with FB posts no longer shows on searches but a new one I didn't create is showing with no page updates.

Seriously social media is useless for small business. I'd get better results standing on a corner of a busy street giving out flyer.

Dude, weed sells itself. Stop working so hard.

Is it very silly or suicidal to upset sikh lions.

[Anonymous Coward]

One just cannot grasp why Facebook wanted to pick a fight with the sikh, among all the ethnic/religious groups in the world? Remember what happened to Indira Gandhi. That could also happen to Mr. Sugarhill, because every sikh man is a lion (singh) and every sikh woman is a lioness (kaur) and they wear a turban and a dagger everywhere, all the time.

I would recommend Facebook re-activate the sikh page and block the account of Ninja Brotherhood of Iga Prefecturate and the Fraternal Association of Respectable Sicilian Godfathers instead. The FB executive board's survival rates would increase significantly.

How many times do I have to say this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook is a private service, not a public square. Stop depending on it thus.

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #1/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apk doesn't think DNS servers are worth running & believes Microsoft Active Directory can run w/out DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015

Where'd I say it? Show us. I say AD needs internal DNS far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

See "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers" there on OpenDNS free (I use it) + AD in my security guide.

+ how to migrate hosts across a LAN (admin/scripts not GPO)-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

... apk

---

I'm RIGHT on admin priv + hosts (WFP/SFP)!

"figured out why privilege escalation's a bad thing?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015

How else can I programmatically update hosts itself?

---

"it requires elevation to write hosts" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015

Hypocrite later admits it!

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware DEMANDS it or it can't do a job fully like many security tools!

---

"Needing admin privileges every time a program updates is poor design" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

Mine doesn't to get new data to update hosts vs. threats. Only hosts itself updates need it vs. WFP/SFP. Users set it too. It's not programmatic impersonation.

---

"90's tech to fight modern war" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

Ozymandias/Watchmen per a namesake:

"I resolved to apply antiquities teachings" (hosts) "to our world today & began my path to conquest - Conquest not of men but of the evils that beset them: Fossil Fuels (antispyware), Oil (antivir), Nuclear Power (addons) are like a drug & you gentlemen along w/ foreign interests are the pushers"

It works Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Oliver Day (Symantec) too-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts' Admin hosts+recommends APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

APK

P.S.=> Con't. in #2/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #2/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

62 sources of good repute show + /. users say otherwise:

Proven safe by 57 antivirus programs in its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Same for the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

Per VirScan its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news... /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

---

You tried using Computer Associates antivirus that I overturned on false positives (1/8 over time) were caught in ACCOUNTING SCANDALS FRAUD http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...

Reputable source (not): They had to sell off their PC security suite too (crap too) LOWERING the 'threat level' on THAT program (not my hosts file engine) TO ZERO!

* YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERY ACCOUNT NOTED!

APK

P.S.=> Con't in part #3/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #3/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Virus scanners/Adblock software don't need admin priv to update" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

Neither does my program. AV does to remove threats - Adblock addons = Vastly INFERIOR in abilities + efficiency vs. hosts as I proved & no one proved me wrong to date!

---

"your software does" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

No, hosts do due to WFP/SFP - Intake update of new hosts data doesn't!

---

"won't reveal your source code" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

I don't owe you it. I don't give away work to be stolen by others so it's misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

---

"What's stopping you from pointing my bank's web site at your private server?" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

I don't keep a server. Security guru (not - you create no ware for security & your forensics skills = non-existent): Put it in a VM, trace it using process monitor + wireshark to prove it (don't need code)!

---

"the possibility of being caught, which would be pretty hard to catch w/ such a large hosts file, as no one can go through it manually." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

I place hardcoded fav sites @ top of hosts for speed & reliabilty - you'd spot it easily & bulk of hosts is sorted blocked known bad threats.

---

"What are you going to do when Windows gets rid of the hosts file completely?" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

Hasn't happened!

---

"They have already taken steps to make it useless in Windows 10." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

It works there!

Telemetry tracking's killing 10 by itself: Win10 = Win8 = flops - who're you fooling other than yourself?

APK

P.S.=> Con't. in #4/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #4/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 'eats his words' vs. me 2x yet again:

"introduces risk you are relying on a 3rd party to update a hosts file potentially opening you up to MITM attacks" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

How can my program do it?

Only things it puts in as non-blocking IP addy to hostnames is ones users give it as their favs to speed up @ the TOP of hosts REVERSE DNS VERIFIED!

(For more speed, & reliability + security - in RAM as 1st resolver queried = faster & more secure vs. remote DNS w/ all its security issues in Kaminsky flaw, DNSChanger malware IP stack settings, routers bushwhacked in DNS settings, rogue DNS, Open DNS servers abused by malware. It aids in reliability vs. redirects).

YOU'D SPOT IT INSTANTLY AS THEY ARE @ TOP OF CUSTOM HOSTS & can easily edit anything you want out of it!

(Rest = known bad sites from 10 reputable security community sites for blocking - the MAJORITY of what's in my hosts files!)

---

"maybe one day you can get a score 5 comment" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

See subject & ~ 12 +5 upmods making you "eat your words" vs. me (1st one: You tried using what I post there against me to FAIL):

+5 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (11):

http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

"You believe you are getting the better of me" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

YOU GOT THE BEST OF YOURSELF in tech fails & lies about me. Your immature signatures about me SCREAM you're butthurt - You did it to yourself.

APK

P.S.=> Con't. in #5/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #5/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"defame me saying things he knows aren't true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

Hypocrite You're projecting & your signatures do the rest.

"the feeling of icky his software - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

I show /.'ers say differently by quoted testimonials - Show us you've done better: YOU can't!

"maybe someone will think they are true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

Quotes of you = true - & You can't keep your word + projecting what YOU do (AD/DNS lie).

"I don't have time for the Troll APK, and refuse to respond anymore to a post signed APK" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015

I protect users speeding them up, helping reliability, & security + anonymity online w/ more ability & efficiency than ANY 1 solution doing more w/ less - do you? No.

"I should change my signature again to rile him up more." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015

Childish sigs = all you've got!

"I refuted his assertions - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

&

"You claim I have never proved you wrong...a flat out lie." - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2015

&

"I proved you wrong on numerous occasions" - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2015

Where & on what tech? "Cat got your tongue"??

"written in shitty Delphi, "How to secure Windows" docs I could have written in my sleep when I was 20" - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2016

You're 30++ & haven't done either!

Show you've done MORE vs.a small partial list of mine & better, + earlier:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

THEN talk vs. TALKING OUT YOUR ASS!

CIS Tool took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... which you doubted & my layered security guides got me paid http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn... MILLIONS use.

APK

P.S.=>

"I never admit you were right" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

You PROVED I am... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #1/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apk doesn't think DNS servers are worth running & believes Microsoft Active Directory can run w/out DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015

Where'd I say it? Show us. I say AD needs internal DNS far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

See "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers" there on OpenDNS free (I use it) + AD in my security guide.

+ how to migrate hosts across a LAN (admin/scripts not GPO)-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

... apk

---

I'm RIGHT on admin priv + hosts (WFP/SFP)!

"figured out why privilege escalation's a bad thing?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015

How else can I programmatically update hosts itself?

---

"it requires elevation to write hosts" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015

Hypocrite later admits it!

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware DEMANDS it or it can't do a job fully like many security tools!

---

"Needing admin privileges every time a program updates is poor design" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

Mine doesn't to get new data to update hosts vs. threats. Only hosts itself updates need it vs. WFP/SFP. Users set it too. It's not programmatic impersonation.

---

"90's tech to fight modern war" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

Ozymandias/Watchmen per a namesake:

"I resolved to apply antiquities teachings" (hosts) "to our world today & began my path to conquest - Conquest not of men but of the evils that beset them: Fossil Fuels (antispyware), Oil (antivir), Nuclear Power (addons) are like a drug & you gentlemen along w/ foreign interests are the pushers"

It works Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Oliver Day (Symantec) too-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts' Admin hosts+recommends APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

APK

P.S.=> Con't. in #2/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #2/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

62 sources of good repute show + /. users say otherwise:

Proven safe by 57 antivirus programs in its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Same for the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

Per VirScan its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news... /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

---

You tried using Computer Associates antivirus that I overturned on false positives (1/8 over time) were caught in ACCOUNTING SCANDALS FRAUD http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...

Reputable source (not): They had to sell off their PC security suite too (crap too) LOWERING the 'threat level' on THAT program (not my hosts file engine) TO ZERO!

* YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERY ACCOUNT NOTED!

APK

P.S.=> Con't in part #3/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #3/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Virus scanners/Adblock software don't need admin priv to update" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

Neither does my program. AV does to remove threats - Adblock addons = Vastly INFERIOR in abilities + efficiency vs. hosts as I proved & no one proved me wrong to date!

---

"your software does" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

No, hosts do due to WFP/SFP - Intake update of new hosts data doesn't!

---

"won't reveal your source code" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

I don't owe you it. I don't give away work to be stolen by others so it's misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

---

"What's stopping you from pointing my bank's web site at your private server?" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

I don't keep a server. Security guru (not - you create no ware for security & your forensics skills = non-existent): Put it in a VM, trace it using process monitor + wireshark to prove it (don't need code)!

---

"the possibility of being caught, which would be pretty hard to catch w/ such a large hosts file, as no one can go through it manually." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

I place hardcoded fav sites @ top of hosts for speed & reliabilty - you'd spot it easily & bulk of hosts is sorted blocked known bad threats.

---

"What are you going to do when Windows gets rid of the hosts file completely?" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

Hasn't happened!

---

"They have already taken steps to make it useless in Windows 10." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

It works there!

Telemetry tracking's killing 10 by itself: Win10 = Win8 = flops - who're you fooling other than yourself?

APK

P.S.=> Con't. in #4/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #4/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 'eats his words' vs. me 2x yet again:

"introduces risk you are relying on a 3rd party to update a hosts file potentially opening you up to MITM attacks" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

How can my program do it?

Only things it puts in as non-blocking IP addy to hostnames is ones users give it as their favs to speed up @ the TOP of hosts REVERSE DNS VERIFIED!

(For more speed, & reliability + security - in RAM as 1st resolver queried = faster & more secure vs. remote DNS w/ all its security issues in Kaminsky flaw, DNSChanger malware IP stack settings, routers bushwhacked in DNS settings, rogue DNS, Open DNS servers abused by malware. It aids in reliability vs. redirects).

YOU'D SPOT IT INSTANTLY AS THEY ARE @ TOP OF CUSTOM HOSTS & can easily edit anything you want out of it!

(Rest = known bad sites from 10 reputable security community sites for blocking - the MAJORITY of what's in my hosts files!)

---

"maybe one day you can get a score 5 comment" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

See subject & ~ 12 +5 upmods making you "eat your words" vs. me (1st one: You tried using what I post there against me to FAIL):

+5 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (11):

http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

"You believe you are getting the better of me" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

YOU GOT THE BEST OF YOURSELF in tech fails & lies about me. Your immature signatures about me SCREAM you're butthurt - You did it to yourself.

APK

P.S.=> Con't. in #5/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #5/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"defame me saying things he knows aren't true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

Hypocrite You're projecting & your signatures do the rest.

"the feeling of icky his software - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

I show /.'ers say differently by quoted testimonials - Show us you've done better: YOU can't!

"maybe someone will think they are true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

Quotes of you = true - & You can't keep your word + projecting what YOU do (AD/DNS lie).

"I don't have time for the Troll APK, and refuse to respond anymore to a post signed APK" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015

I protect users speeding them up, helping reliability, & security + anonymity online w/ more ability & efficiency than ANY 1 solution doing more w/ less - do you? No.

"I should change my signature again to rile him up more." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015

Childish sigs = all you've got!

"I refuted his assertions - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

&

"You claim I have never proved you wrong...a flat out lie." - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2015

&

"I proved you wrong on numerous occasions" - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2015

Where & on what tech? "Cat got your tongue"??

"written in shitty Delphi, "How to secure Windows" docs I could have written in my sleep when I was 20" - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2016

You're 30++ & haven't done either!

Show you've done MORE vs.a small partial list of mine & better, + earlier:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

THEN talk vs. TALKING OUT YOUR ASS!

CIS Tool took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... which you doubted & my layered security guides got me paid http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn... MILLIONS use.

APK

P.S.=>

"I never admit you were right" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

You PROVED I am... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #1/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apk doesn't think DNS servers are worth running & believes Microsoft Active Directory can run w/out DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015

Where'd I say it? Show us. I say AD needs internal DNS far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

See "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers" there on OpenDNS free (I use it) + AD in my security guide.

+ how to migrate hosts across a LAN (admin/scripts not GPO)-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

... apk

---

I'm RIGHT on admin priv + hosts (WFP/SFP)!

"figured out why privilege escalation's a bad thing?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015

How else can I programmatically update hosts itself?

---

"it requires elevation to write hosts" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015

Hypocrite later admits it!

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware DEMANDS it or it can't do a job fully like many security tools!

---

"Needing admin privileges every time a program updates is poor design" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

Mine doesn't to get new data to update hosts vs. threats. Only hosts itself updates need it vs. WFP/SFP. Users set it too. It's not programmatic impersonation.

---

"90's tech to fight modern war" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

Ozymandias/Watchmen per a namesake:

"I resolved to apply antiquities teachings" (hosts) "to our world today & began my path to conquest - Conquest not of men but of the evils that beset them: Fossil Fuels (antispyware), Oil (antivir), Nuclear Power (addons) are like a drug & you gentlemen along w/ foreign interests are the pushers"

It works Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Oliver Day (Symantec) too-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts' Admin hosts+recommends APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

APK

P.S.=> Con't. in #2/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #2/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

62 sources of good repute show + /. users say otherwise:

Proven safe by 57 antivirus programs in its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Same for the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

Per VirScan its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news... /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

---

You tried using Computer Associates antivirus that I overturned on false positives (1/8 over time) were caught in ACCOUNTING SCANDALS FRAUD http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...

Reputable source (not): They had to sell off their PC security suite too (crap too) LOWERING the 'threat level' on THAT program (not my hosts file engine) TO ZERO!

* YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERY ACCOUNT NOTED!

APK

P.S.=> Con't in part #3/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #3/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Virus scanners/Adblock software don't need admin priv to update" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

Neither does my program. AV does to remove threats - Adblock addons = Vastly INFERIOR in abilities + efficiency vs. hosts as I proved & no one proved me wrong to date!

---

"your software does" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

No, hosts do due to WFP/SFP - Intake update of new hosts data doesn't!

---

"won't reveal your source code" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

I don't owe you it. I don't give away work to be stolen by others so it's misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

---

"What's stopping you from pointing my bank's web site at your private server?" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

I don't keep a server. Security guru (not - you create no ware for security & your forensics skills = non-existent): Put it in a VM, trace it using process monitor + wireshark to prove it (don't need code)!

---

"the possibility of being caught, which would be pretty hard to catch w/ such a large hosts file, as no one can go through it manually." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

I place hardcoded fav sites @ top of hosts for speed & reliabilty - you'd spot it easily & bulk of hosts is sorted blocked known bad threats.

---

"What are you going to do when Windows gets rid of the hosts file completely?" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

Hasn't happened!

---

"They have already taken steps to make it useless in Windows 10." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

It works there!

Telemetry tracking's killing 10 by itself: Win10 = Win8 = flops - who're you fooling other than yourself?

APK

P.S.=> Con't. in #4/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #4/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 'eats his words' vs. me 2x yet again:

"introduces risk you are relying on a 3rd party to update a hosts file potentially opening you up to MITM attacks" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

How can my program do it?

Only things it puts in as non-blocking IP addy to hostnames is ones users give it as their favs to speed up @ the TOP of hosts REVERSE DNS VERIFIED!

(For more speed, & reliability + security - in RAM as 1st resolver queried = faster & more secure vs. remote DNS w/ all its security issues in Kaminsky flaw, DNSChanger malware IP stack settings, routers bushwhacked in DNS settings, rogue DNS, Open DNS servers abused by malware. It aids in reliability vs. redirects).

YOU'D SPOT IT INSTANTLY AS THEY ARE @ TOP OF CUSTOM HOSTS & can easily edit anything you want out of it!

(Rest = known bad sites from 10 reputable security community sites for blocking - the MAJORITY of what's in my hosts files!)

---

"maybe one day you can get a score 5 comment" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

See subject & ~ 12 +5 upmods making you "eat your words" vs. me (1st one: You tried using what I post there against me to FAIL):

+5 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (11):

http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

"You believe you are getting the better of me" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

YOU GOT THE BEST OF YOURSELF in tech fails & lies about me. Your immature signatures about me SCREAM you're butthurt - You did it to yourself.

APK

P.S.=> Con't. in #5/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #5/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"defame me saying things he knows aren't true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

Hypocrite You're projecting & your signatures do the rest.

"the feeling of icky his software - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

I show /.'ers say differently by quoted testimonials - Show us you've done better: YOU can't!

"maybe someone will think they are true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

Quotes of you = true - & You can't keep your word + projecting what YOU do (AD/DNS lie).

"I don't have time for the Troll APK, and refuse to respond anymore to a post signed APK" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015

I protect users speeding them up, helping reliability, & security + anonymity online w/ more ability & efficiency than ANY 1 solution doing more w/ less - do you? No.

"I should change my signature again to rile him up more." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015

Childish sigs = all you've got!

"I refuted his assertions - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

&

"You claim I have never proved you wrong...a flat out lie." - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2015

&

"I proved you wrong on numerous occasions" - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2015

Where & on what tech? "Cat got your tongue"??

"written in shitty Delphi, "How to secure Windows" docs I could have written in my sleep when I was 20" - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2016

You're 30++ & haven't done either!

Show you've done MORE vs.a small partial list of mine & better, + earlier:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

THEN talk vs. TALKING OUT YOUR ASS!

CIS Tool took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... which you doubted & my layered security guides got me paid http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn... MILLIONS use.

APK

P.S.=>

"I never admit you were right" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

You PROVED I am... apk