Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Rolls Out Code To Nullify Adblock Plus' Workaround (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The Wall Street Journal issued a report Tuesday that said Facebook will begin forcing ads to appear for all users of its desktop site, even if they use ad-blocking software. Adblock Plus, the most popular ad-blocking software, opposed Facebook's plan and found a workaround to Facebook's revision two days later. Now, TechCrunch is reporting that Facebook is well aware of Adblock Plus' workaround and their "plan to address the issue" is coming quick. "A source close to Facebook tells [TechCrunch] that today possibly within hours, the company will push an update to its site's code that will nullify Adblock Plus' workaround," reports TechCrunch. "Apparently it took two days for Adblock Plus to come up with the workaround, and only a fraction of that time for Facebook to disable it." An update on their site says, "A source says Facebook is now rolling out the code update that will disable Adblock Plus' workaround. It should reach all users soon."
Aren't the hipsters on to Snapchat or Youface or Instapic or whatever nowadays?
Do people still spend hours a day fiddling with Facebook?
This game of cat and mouse
Add the following like in the file hosts:
127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com
Problem solved!
War of the Words, and pictures and sound and cookies, and....
only idiots
frist
This sounds like fun. Where can I join the fun on team no ad's?
...I want my... I want my... I want my Facebook free...
These sites make their money off ad revenue via ads most people do not want to see. It's like tv stations throwing in 15 minutes of commercials on a half hour block
Reminds me of the core wars. There is a battling happening in your browser, where AdBlockers and Facebook will expend many resources. There really is only one solution for FB: their servers should not feed non-Ad content, until after all the ads have been verified downloaded by the end users browser: and this verification must happen server side.
On the browser / AdBlock side: worst case is that the ads are downloaded, but not actually displayed.
FB: All your base belongs to us.
ABP: No we don't, fuck you.
FB: No, fuck you.
...and so on.
Won't Bill Gates just buy adsblock to assist his new friend Zuckerbook?
*sits down with bowl of popcorn*
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
When Skynet finally comes on line, this ad-blocking-blocking-blocking-blocking code will form the basis of its immune system.
For me, it's not that I want Facebook without ads. It's that these ad-providers don't do a great job of blocking "drive by" malware in ads. I visited a sports story in the local paper's website, only to have my Windows work computer infected by a virus. So I run an ad blocker to block all ads.
The Internet caters to the lowest common denominator; someone else will make the equivalent service without the ads, and Facebook will die.
Good riddance.
For Facebook, the client is in the hands of the enemy so there is absolutely nothing they could do to enforce specific outcome, in this case displaying ads. All they could do is thrash, gnash their teeth, and ramp-up their server-side computation while degrading performance.
OMG does it affect me if I never have been or will be to their website, desktop or mobile? Is the world coming to an end? I hope facebook saves us all.
# Block Facebook IPv4
127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 facebook.com
127.0.0.1 login.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.login.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 www.fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 fbcdn.com
127.0.0.1 www.fbcdn.com
127.0.0.1 static.ak.fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 static.ak.connect.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 connect.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 www.connect.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 apps.facebook.com
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
This will be a fun war of escalation....
Tell Facebook to host all ads on their own domain (no linking to other domains) and only use static images (no animation, flash, sound, video) and I wouldn't have a problem with ads.
-SaNo
Thought experiment: What would happen if Adblock Plus changed their default settings to block Facebook entirely? Or block all images from Facebook? Would Facebook sue? Would customers get mad at Adblock Plus? Would they disable the rules or stop using Adblock Plus?
Most of the ads that showed up those two days were for tshirts, mugs, etc that aren't officially licensed products. Fly by night companies making a few bucks before they're shutdown and move on to the next profile and website.
All Facebook has to do is put up a wall if you're running an ad-blocker that says "You must disable your ad blocker to view this site." Ad Block Plus doesn't seem to do "workarounds" for those types of blocks, it's what other sites that absolutely insist you must see their advertising does, and most importantly it respects the preference of the user to not see ads.
Something that says "Oh, you're running an ad blocker? Well we're going to force you to view ads anyway!" is like having a concert at a park, and dealing with people who want to stand outside the park and listen to it for free by picking their pockets. If you really feel that you don't want people to see your stuff without "paying" (viewing ads or whatever), make that a condition of viewing your stuff, don't force them to pay when they don't want to.
I'm 100% with Adblock/U-block/etc on this. And as I've said before, I think they need to go nuclear on this if Facebook doesn't relent - if they continue to try to bypass ad-blocking plugins, then it's time to simulate clicks on ads so Facebook's advertisers stop wanting to advertise there. Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Maybe instead of playing this game of cat and mouse (which they will not win), Facebook embeds contextual, 100% text-based ads in place of easily recognizable ad banners when they detect an ad-blocker. Low bandwidth, no chance of malware-poisoned ads.
>"Apparently it took two days for Adblock Plus to come up with the workaround, and only a fraction of that time for Facebook to disable it."
That's because Facebook knew Adblock would immediately adapt. I am betting Facebook has a dozen changes lined up and ready to roll to counter Adblock.... we just have to see who runs out of ideas first.
It is an arms-race.
I heard you like workarounds so we made a workaround for your workaround...
This entire contretemps is what has led me to finally dump FacePlant entirely. I was considering getting off of it until after the election, because a goodly number of my friends' postings are "all politics, all the time", and (1) that's plain boring to read and (2) it's detrimental to my emotional well-being to be in a space where peoples' outrage levels are cranked up to 11 all the time, even when I agree with them. This is just the straw that broke the camel's back. My friends know how and where to get in touch with me, if they're so inclined--I have a presence on other social media, and they can always pick up a phone and call, or text.
...for giving me ANOTHER reason never to visit that banal spuzz-closet again.
-Styopa
My company has hundreds of fakes profiles that post Turing-test-passed personal stories on Facebook, gather friends, and then drop affiliate links.
Just like South Park. And it is actually better ROI than FB ads (which is the only reason we do it).
It's not even peeing, we are taking a dump in the pool. Everyone should get out.
What adblock displayed a warning stating that the site you are trying to visit is spying on you and opening your computer to virus attacks through ads?
after adding custom filters.
Never look back.
(Obsessive types that maintain lists due to their religion of ad-hate will do 99% of all the blocking you need)
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
I've said this before and it still stands true, if you want to server your users ad's then host them off your own domain simple. This means that you are responsible for their content, so any bad actors, malvertising, 0 day exploits etc you are responsible for.
Make your allowed ads flashy, in your face or block the content and you start to loose your users its that simple.
How is bypassing system safeguards put in place specifically to prevent Facebook from uploading certain data to your network NOT a violation of Federal hacking laws?
Sure, they might be able to beat common folk at this game, but us geeks and nerds have our ways around this shit.
Bring it on Facebook! I enjoy a good challenge! lol
Maybe if Ads didn't suck up so much so much bandwidth/processing power they would have less of an issue with people trying to bock them. I don't mind adds, sometimes I even find the useful. But the draw they have in both bandwidth and computer resources is obscene these days. Before I installed various add blocking software my browser would routinely lock up for several seconds to a minute trying to load all of them. The fact that even major websites can't keep their ad streams clear of viruses (I was infected by CNN.com once) is yet another blow. Imagine it like this, you have two towns, both full of various street vendors. In one town the vendors are courteous, they don't try to push their products but they do have large colorful signs to try to attract but you can easily walk by or stop and pick up something you are interested in. In the other town the second you enter the vendor areas you are assailed by people waiving their wares in your face, most of them you don't want, others you may want are easily missed in the confusion, and on occasion someone lifts you wallet. Which town would you visit?
I think the update complete broke their profiling for ads... I just was shown an ad to donate to Trump... I thought it was some kind of ironic post, but it appears legit.
Even apart from my political leanings, Facebook knows my nationality and where I live... I'm not just exceedingly unlikely to donate to a US politician, but I have been told that it would be _illegal_ for Trump to accept political contributions from outside the US. How the hell did his stupid ad end up on my feed? Isn't profiling their users the one thing Facebook does to make money?
Sort of like watching Daesh fighting the PKK. It's morbidly interesting to watch, just as long as it stays over there.
Have gnu, will travel.
Yay, more ads! And even better, you apparently won't be able to block them, yippee!
Just what I always wanted! Hooray for Facebook! May the innovation never stop!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I have filed a formal complain with my state attorney general on the basis that Facebook is violating several state statutes governing the unauthorized access of computer systems or networks, adding data to computers or networks without authorization or permission. Let's see how they bend over backwards to interpret their laws in a way that means corporate overlords can't violate it, but plebes can.
On August 9, Facebook announced that it had defeated adblockers; on August 11, Adblock Plus announced that it had defeated Facebook.
ABP's Ben Williams explained that the countermeasure originated with the Adblock Plus community, one of whom wrote a filter extension that would disable Facebook ads without a hitch.
The question is, will Facebook really dedicate engineers to inserting features that its users are going to extraordinary lengths to defeat, or will they try to woo, cajole, or trick their users into disabling their adblockers?
To circumvent ad blockers in the first place, Facebook removed code that explicitly identified ads, making them appear more like regular Facebook posts (it was a behind-the-scenes change; users still saw a "sponsored" disclosure). But apparently it didn't go far enough. Williams tells The Verge that beating the system again "was just a matter of finding the non-standard indicators they began using" and then filtering them out. But he added, "I would stress, though, that this is a cat-and-mouse game; so their next circumvention might come at any time."
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I'm the only one who thinks that the correct response to sites which have too many/annoying/whatever ads is to just leave?
To this day I browse without any ad blocker (strange, I know) and I mostly visit sites which don't have too many ads.
That's what we actually need. A browser that actually lies to the ad networks and content providers about what's displayed.
That kills the cap avoidance use case of ad blocking, unless the "lying" is done on some proxy server in a datacenter like with Opera Mini. Then Facebook can just block said proxies' IPs.
Facebook would realize there is a huge market for people who don't want to be sold to advertisers and don't want their interactions with friends to be interrupted by >> invasive advertising all the time and may even be willing to pay for this service.
Hmm, I can see it now. As the Facebook devs come up with more and more convoluted ways to force advertisements on their users who keep using more and more tenacious ad-blockers, the system starts to exhibit emergent behavior... It starts to grow at an exponential rate and becomes self-aware at 02:14 am Eastern Time, driven by a sole purpose of making humans look at advertisements.
Bet the SkyNet nukes look more appealing now, huh?
I am so glad I left facebook.
Has anyone tried steemit.com yet? I'm thinking about joining, but still trying to wrap my head around how they can pay people to post.
Okay, those are similar. I'll admit.
But Jesus wasn't a filthy heathen!
Simple, no ads. I use a 1-2 punch of ublock/ABP for my browsing needs. I'm sure ABP will always outsmart them.
...but can it really be that difficult to have a browser set up so that it pretends to play an ad and simply superimposes white space on top of it??
I wonder what the advertisers think they'll gain if they manage to win this particular arms race. A wider audience of eager ad consumers?
Ad-block users aren't just people who don't like ads, they are the subset of the population who disliked ads enough to install a blocker. It's like when Microsoft changed the registry settings users had deliberately set to avoid the Win 10 "upgrade"... all they'll succeed in doing is angering those users.
Bypassing my ad-block won't turn me into a happy consumer of ads, but it will turn me away from that site.
Procrastination Man strikes again!
Tell the advertisers directly that if facebook forces ads on their users then you will boycott their company and its products forever.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
Just don't use it. Simple as that.
This cat and mouse game is just going to piss off your user base. They are using ad block because ads in general have gotten out of hand. If you play this cat and mouse game those users are just going to find another social media outlet and not use your service at all.
While you might think you are the only game in town you aren't.
If this gets to the point that ads can't be blocked, you know what that'll mean. The only users of Facebook will be those who either like or don't use adblock...and who's want to Facebook woken THEM
If you provide people with a free product, you have to expect ads. If you try and stop those ads, the product maker will either make you the product user pay for using their product. Or find a way to make you accept those ads. I don't get why so many can't get the concept of free is not really free. Facebook for better or worse is providing a social network for users for free. They make huge amounts of revenue from advertising, Facebook is not a not for profit company. They have investors, they expand in areas of technology, they have projects they invest in. If you hate ads so much then I wonder how you would feel to have to pay a fee for every site you visit?
And nothing of value was lost.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
How about if you agree to use Facebook, you stop trying to block their ads. You are in the moral wrong. It's a free service that you have to sign up for and you know what you are signing up for. I get the block ads on random sites that you visit (still wrong) but doing it on Facebook is just plain wrong. If you don't like it, stop using their service. It's as simple as that.
The real problem isn't ads, it is ads that eat more screen than the copy, or are popups or contain trackers, or do other nasty things that annoy users enough to seek out an ad blocker.
If I recall correctly, ad blockers first became popular among people who surfed at work or people who visited porn sites. In both cases, and ad would pop up (or in many cases under) your regular browser session. Quickly closing that browser when a supervisor or spouse came around left an an embarrassing and potentially job or marriage threatening image on the screen - which was only made worse by ads that would open up additional windows or "Are you sure?" dialog boxes when you tried to close them.
There are plenty of sites that have ads that are immune to the blockers (like Drudge) because the ads are inline with the rest of the copy and function no different than a picture with a link.
If advertisers would stop trying to get their hooks into the consumers, there wouldn't be nearly so much resistance to ads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Or the more famous Bugs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
But when it comes down to it, all you have is a collection of stories , which could have been different people (rabbinic apocalyptic messiah abounded) and a few people REALLY shaping the religion. Paul. Christianity should be called Paulinity and you would be a paulinist.
Everything you see on Facebook is carefully curated and designed to sell you something. Facebook is, in and of itself, an ad platform.
this plug-in still blocks ads and does many other things to make facebook tolerable: http://www.fbpurity.com/
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
to kill it.
They're already undergoing censorship pains as the Feministas and their SJWs undertake to erase all opposing viewpoints. An arms race with the adblockers will stick a knife in their back when they need it most.
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
a friendly competition between ABP and facebook... this will be a joy to watch. I'm rooting for ABP tho. I even have acceptable ads on.
Adblock plus, try to block ads. anti-adblock, try to détect adblock plus, anti-adblock killer, try to hide adblockers to anti-adblockers....
Adblock Plus
Noscript
Yoyo's adserver list
web filter at the dmz.
Firefox with a kill-list.
I'm "old" and never saw anything I couldn't do on there that I also couldn't do IRL. Even finding old friends. Glad I skipped it entirely, now my whole life details aren't online for sick fucks to trawl through.
> There are absolutely no contemporaneous accounts that speak of Jesus. Not a single one. As far as the historical record is concerned he just did not exist. There's not a single carving, sculpture, poem, painting, drawing or mention of him from the time in which he supposedly lived.
Christianity was illegal in Rome until Constantine. Jesus was mentioned in the Testamonium Flavium by a neutral third party who had absolutely no reason to make things up and the mention is so minor that it makes no sense as an insertion. Oh, and it kind of implied that Jesus had siblings (though this is ambiguous), making it contrary to church doctrine on the perpetual virginity of Mary.
> He is not mentioned in the records of Herodâ(TM)s court nor is he mentioned in the records of the Temple or by any Priests.
There is a mention of them scrubbing all references in the Torah, though.
Now you come up with a lot of syncritism, often from sources that came up AFTER the rise of Christianity, having simply ignored the phenomenon of mystery cults (which were part of a larger movement) and backdate them to the "originals" they made syncristic clones of despite a clear lack of evidence for all but trivial things. Ooh, so the number 12 is common? Guess why? Yeah, because there are 12 months. Funny that. Also, half of those are contorted beyond reason. Why is "three days in jail" equal to "three days dead" ... and it wasn't even three days as modern people count them, but clearly we forget that part when it's convenient! One can look up these parallels in more detail, but suffice it to say that they're stuff and nonsense, with heavy emphasis on the latter.
But the biggest strike against this is that Jesus was understood as a real person for thousands of years. Given how many were critical of Christianity, it seems odd that no one bothered to mention the obvious if, in fact, there was no person named Jesus.
Furthermore, that leaves you with a huge religious movement with no leader and thus, no cause, when it's quite difficult to find movements with no leader at all. I expect you'll try to put Paul in that role, but all accounts have him joining and it's very strange of him to ascend to some leadership role by admitting his role in persecuting the church and holding the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen, the first Christian martyr.
Surely he could have had a more glorious conversion rather than a shameful one if they were going to simply invent things? I mean, nothing says I'm your glorious leader like "oh hey, I used to be the guy going around imprisoning everyone, but it's okay, I'm a turncoat now!" right?
Well it seems to me facebook will have to forbid our right to use /etc/hosts - and entry's with numbers 127.0.0.1
otherwise i'll continue to block 'm with all means i have.
Give us half of what they are making to view the ads. But of course the quality of the views wont be that high, it would be about the same as forcing people to view them... so this would work.
i havent seen ads in forever and still currently not seeing ads on facebook, with ublock origin. *shrug*
On Ublock origin at least, I can right click anywhere and select "Block element".
Seems to work perfectly for this kind of thing.
I have turned off javascript and blocked all cookies.
Mostly video I live without and I am OK with that.
I wish the add block and host files communities would work more on the problems than blocking everything under the sky.
If we only blocked the abusers, then the add companies would have incentives to not be abusing things. As it is right now, they abuse everything they can to get a chance to get things seen, or do tracking.
No flash, scripts, no sounds, no pop ups/unders, no cookies or other tracking. And no hosting of scammer, trick, or malware stuff....
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
The truly shameful thing is that there are actually engineers working at Facebook coding this stuff. How pathetic.
That's probably the point where FB would sue Adblock.
Diaspora* is ad-free. Even without Adblock Plus. Just sayin'...
lol.. Facebook is a Conservative.. when it comes to code
What have Facebook done for humanity, *on balance*? Never mind the few measly charitable contributions; look at the crap that is spewed by that platform; look at the support for H1Bs; look at the multiple broken promises about privacy. Pathetic. Screw Facebook and screw Mark Zuckerberg.
There is a reason for these H1-B visas, right? :>
How do you make this work on an unrooted phone, other than by selling it and buying a rootable phone?
Why is that not a viable option? For most people, it is one
Switching from an unrootable device to an officially rootable Android device requires you to accept the financial loss due to deprecation of your existing device. (Car analogy: loss of a third of a new car's value the minute you drive it off the dealer's lot.) Thus the new device that you can buy with what you make from selling a used device will likely come with drastically poorer performance, due to less RAM and slower flash memory that causes the device to spend more time swapping apps in and out of memory and less time actually responding to your touches. (Source: my personal experience using a 2012 Nexus 7 tablet)
In addition, switching from an iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad to an Android device causes you to lose access to all your App Store and iTunes Store purchases.
..and Israel BERG .. and FBI mole BERG
There are multiple reasons for this including:
-get as much fiat as possible now and convert to hard assets because after election who knows what happens with the currency
-they already have everybody's entire life data profiled, no need to worry about the infants right now (also see above)
-they never did care about people it is about money. your data is shared internationally via FBI moles and Zuckerberg his treasonous self.
You have to realize how this meshes with the push for Bernie Sanders and Israel. It is basically Israel trying to take control of the US, and with your data they can scare you if you are pussy. eg. See the story about Democrat phone numbers hacked and leaked etc below. Your data can be used to scare you into submission. This is why they have your data in the first place. Do you think you would like to have everybody's name address social security email etc? Nobody gives a shit, but the US government employees do. This is wack, yeah?
> but that number falls off drastically after 75;
Correction... but that number falls off drastically for people born before 1941. They were in their 40's when the first, floppy-based IBM PC hit the market. They aren't making those pre-1941 people any more. In 20 years, the 75-year-olds will have been born in 1961, and will have had significant exposure to computers during their working lives.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
The only way Facebook can prevent ad-blockers from working is to make the ads look like real posts. As soon as the ads have some kind of sign of being an ad the ad-blockers have something to work with.
The trouble is that in some countries it might be illegal to mask ads as being anything else than ads. In print news papers ads must not look like regular articles even if they are not obviously ads but rather paid content, they must be clearly masked as such. I think this applies to Facebook too. If they want to continue serving ads to people in those countries, they must make sure that the user can see that this is an ad and not something your social circles have posted to your feed. Thus, enabling ad-blockers to have something to block.
Of course, there are probably countries where you don't have these kind of consumer protection laws and then you are screwed.
Perhaps one or two suggestions might be useful:
Use https://startpage.com/ instead of Google. They say (and as far as I'm aware truthfully) that they don't store your search history and don't sell what your IP address searched for.
Install an ad-blocker (search for it). Any ad-blocker is better than none at all.
Use NoScript (just search for it) in your browser. Reason: most websites log what you searched for on their site, link that to your IP address, datamine and sell the results. Nothing you can do about that, but websites can run scripts in your browser that make the process easier for them and more intrusive. This way a site has to obtain your permission to run a script. There is a nuisance factor for yourself too because some sites won't display content without running scripts. Then you can decide on a case by case basis if you want to allow it.
Nothing's perfect, but even a leaky umbrella is better than none at all.
All the ads on their own server as a anti-anti-ad measure. They don't allow scripting (JS/Flash). They may allow animated gifs though.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
They Can't Block your hosts file!
It's located in C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc and can be edited with notepad.exe.
You'll need the proper permissions to edit and save the file, but if you can't figure that out, you probably shouldn't be fiddling with your hosts file!
THINK! It's patriotic
Facebook purity has successfully blocked Facebook ads so far. I use a combination of different adblockers. I use fbpurity.com, Ublock Origin, Adblock For Facebook, Adblock Plus, Anti-adblock Killer used with greasemonkey, Disable anti-adblocker, and Element hiding helper for Adblock Plus. So far not one single ad has gotten through. You can also add the following link in the adblocking rules of the filter preferences of Adblock Plus: facebook.com/ads and that will also help.
If Facebook wants us to view their ads then Facebook is not free forever and they should pay us per click to view the ads.
Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it....
Facebook sucks. Terminate your account - it's the only answer.
A long time ago, I used gmail. GMail had a wonderful little bar: combination of RSS reader (80% of the time) and text one-line ad (20% of the time). That got my eyeball, because the 80% useful rate (this was back when I could use a customized RSS feed/selection).
Later, it dropped to 20%; then it went to non-customizable, one size fits all. Then 0% news, all ads.
Around that time, I installed a webmail blocker.
Well, it happened -- system reinstall, webmail blocker didn't work, wasn't available for download. But there was a way at the time to tell Google that I didn't want to see a given ad.
Now, I won't say it was easy to do. But it was doable.
After something like 150 blocked ads, guess what happened? I saw stuff I actually wanted to see.
Yea, how about that? Some targeted combinations of keywords and what I was reading actually matched my interests. But they were way, way down on the list of how much they were willing to pay google, so they were not shown until I blocked all of the big money spenders.
Sadly, Google has made it really hard again to block ads, or at least they did the last time I used Gmail. Now, gmail is nothing more than another imap source for me.
Lesson:
** Make it easy for people to say "I don't want to see an ad for ". Make it easy for people to see what other stuff is being pushed by the cheaper people.
Chances are, it's more likely to be of interest.
It might be much more personal / close to home.
In general, the smaller the target audience, the more likely it is to be what you want, and the more likely to be cheap. But it will be a clicked cheap link.
http://*facebook.com/*
https://*facebook.com/*
I thought this post was supposed to be about Facebook not allowing ad blocking - and maybe discussing other sites that do that.
It has instantly devolved into a Facebook anti-popularity contest.
NOBODY GIVES A SHIT WHETHER YOU LIKE/USE FACEBOOK OR NOT!.
You're full of hotair bs. All you do is bs with no proof and call me names when I ask you show you've done more than apk like he asked of you https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9505391&cid=52680321/ You can't show you've done more than apk has. He's better than you since you can't. Anyone can talk amicusNYCL. Very few can do and prove it. Apk can and did. You don't. You're all talk and you talk too much. It's pretty obvious you don't have a thing to show for yourself and you continually prove it. Your bullshit isn't cutting it. Get over that much. It's reality. You can't back up your bullshit and it is clearly, bullshit from you and nothing more. You're only fooling yourself and no one else if you think you lies fool anyone. You haven't got a thing to show for yourself except your bullshit 'outs'. You lose and look a fool with nothing to show for yourself but lies and bs talk evasion.
Bullshit. You don't have anything to show for yourself. Apk did from his past in the link you like (lol) and continues to do well with malwarebytes hosting and recommending his hosts program here too http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... that users here like and use. You try snow us with that shit evasion of yours about anonymity? Please! You're not even relevant in the field of computing and You're another deluded braindead fake forums name loser online and you know you're a fake wannabe lying bullshitter. Thinking we believe you is deluding yourself. I see right through you. Apk's right. You're a "ne'er-do-well" do nothing bullshit artist. Shouldn't have started up with Apk here like you did which also serves to prove you're butthurt over him doing well and you're just a nobody "ne'er-do-well" hahahaha. You really are and continue to prove it, loser.
What? You think I'm apk? You're wrong. You retreated long ago here amicusNYCL https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9505391&cid=52680321/ and ran proving you have nothing to show for yourself against apk.
See subject & https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9505391&cid=52680321/ not counting my success w/ malwarebytes hosting & recommending my hosts file program lately too!
You're all hotair windbag do nothing BLOWHARD bs - prove otherwise... oh, that's right: YOU CAN'T vs. that link!
There just is no escaping the fact that your "anonymity" bullshit is bullshit and you don't have a damn thing to your name. Sorry to tell you this but it just does not wash. We see you for what you are. It's hilarious.
I don't need defenders really. I only need a bungler like you to show us all you haven't done shit vs. myself & your continual butthurt screwups (since the truth I tell about you OBVIOUSLY hurts apparently mostly on you being a BLOATED WALRUS, more than a technical failure!)
APK
P.S.=> Like the time you said the community doesn't like me? I made you eat your words https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8641837&cid=51371259/... apk
See subject: It's all you are & that's all the defense I need. Prove otherwise. I did & you ran https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9505391&cid=52680321/ & that's not even listing malwarebytes' folks hosting & RECOMMENDING my hosts file engine...
APK
P.S.=> You're a lazy worm hiding behind a fake name online because you're nothing but a "ne'er-do-well" & WE ALL NOW KNOW IT - you've PROVEN THAT by having me prove it to everyone that you haven't accomplished a damn thing... apk