Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Deliberately Allowed 'Friendly Fraud' To Avoid Harming Revenue (gizmodo.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the hands-off-approach dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Newly unsealed court documents show that Facebook was aware that underage children routinely used their parents' payment information to spend large sums of money on in-game purchases, and the company chose not to fix the problem. For years, it allowed for what it called "friendly fraud" because it feared implementing protections would harm revenue, according to the documents. In 2016, Facebook settled a class-action lawsuit brought by parents of children who were tricked into unwittingly making purchases with real money while playing free video games hosted on the social media platform. Despite its recognition of the problem, internal discussions show that Facebook decided it would be best to fight refund requests and allow the problem to persist. Documents related to the case were placed under seal because Facebook successfully argued that releasing them to the public could harm its business. Reveal, a publication run by the Center for Investigative Reporting, argued that these documents were in the public interest; last week, a judge granted Reveal's request to release the documents. On Thursday night, 135 pages from the court proceedings were unsealed, though Facebook was allowed to maintain some redactions.

78 comments

  1. Facebook Is Like The Oil Companies Of Old by dryriver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Probably even financed by the same investors. No regard for anyone.

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:Facebook Is Like The Oil Companies Of Old by infolation · · Score: 2
      Talking of investors, it was interesting the facebook devs used 'boiler room' terminology (whales) to describe the high-spending children:

      Court documents obtained by the US-based Center for Investigative Reporting, initially sealed as part of a lawsuit filed in 2012, revealed Facebook staff discussed what to do with the "whales" , as they referred to the high-spending children, before deciding to refuse refunds.

      source

    2. Re:Facebook Is Like The Oil Companies Of Old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook - where anybody can get facefooked, even da kids!

    3. Re:Facebook Is Like The Oil Companies Of Old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Probably even financed by the same investors.

      Standard Oil turned into the "Liberal CIA" foundation network of "charities" that act like a single gigantic political party with strict message control.

    4. Re:Facebook Is Like The Oil Companies Of Old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is simply not true, why do you lie? Didn't you read 'corporate values' on facebook webpage:

      "Facebook's mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. As our company grows we have 5 strong values that guide the way we work and the decisions we make each day to help achieve our mission....."

      We need less people like you who lie and spread discontent and more people who will bring community together. Please join us in our struggle, today!

  2. Should be fined into oblivion... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

    ...the only way a social media company can maintain a sense of decency is to be a private company. Publicly traded companies are required, by law no less, to seek ever greater and greater revenue. Google has done an AMAZING job of straddling this line (and sometimes going past it) - but it'll get them eventually too.

    --
    Loading...
    1. Re:Should be fined into oblivion... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Publicly traded companies are required, by law no less, to seek ever greater and greater revenue.

      This is a myth. Public companies have no legal obligation to maximize profits.

    2. Re:Should be fined into oblivion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Publicly traded companies are required, by law no less, to seek ever greater and greater revenue.

      This is a myth. Public companies have no legal obligation to maximize profits.

      Technically true in the general case. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the phrase "maximize profits" is not well defined.

      However, there are legal obligations that in practice do cause corporate officers to make decisions to advance profits of the corporation at the expense of the public (or even the interests of the corporation, or the corporate workforce).

      Directors and officers of a corporation in many cases must act in the same manner as a reasonably prudent person in their position would. This is called the "duty of care". This DOES create a legal obligation. The details of the obligation depend upon the details of the documents of incorporation.

      Further, it's not just a question of whether or not somebody HAS acted appropriately, it's often a question of whether or not they are perceived as having acted appropriately.

      Failure to be perceived as having acted appropriate with respect to the duty of care is grounds for a lawsuit - and many such lawsuits have occurred over the years.

      Given the abuses of tort law that are routine in US law, and the massive problems with legal ethics, the fear of such lawsuits is one factor that causes corporate officers to make bad decisions in matters where they must choose between short term profits, long term profits, the good of the workforce, the good of the stock-holders, and the good of society.

      Stupidity, short-sightedness, greed and other forms of self-interest on the part of many corporate officers makes a bad situation worse. But even good people can be pushed into making the wrong decision as a result of the threat (or reality) of a lawsuit. This is a fundamental problem that is often not understood by certain political groups (such as many libertarians), leading to serious problems with their political views.

      The lawyers aren't the only unethical ones (though they certainly try to hide how bad the problems are in their profession - your reference is quite misleading in this regard). There are many mutual fund officers and other majority stockholders that are quite unethical, and will try to pressure corporate officers into advancing the short term interests of these special parties at the expense of the public, or at the expense of the long term interests of the corporation (including the interests of the employees). For example, almost every hostile takeover - and the actions that follow - ultimately will come down to multiple (and often massive) failures of ethics.

      Reality and perception can be very different things: actions that are in reality correct can be construed as being inappropriate by interested parties, and often the ability to shape reality is more important in determining the outcome then the facts on the ground. Lies, misinformation, and deception trump reality.

      It's a lot like the situation in government, where special interest groups are always trying to advance themselves at the expense of the public. Often they are extremely successful at this (see The Captured Economy for many examples compiled by economists, including some pithy quotes on ethics problems with the practice of law in the USA).

      The public and the ordinary corporate workforce, of course, ultimately pays a steep price for all the legal shenanigans. The economy as a whole is impacted in a negative way, and the problems lead to job loss, numerous forms of hardship, people being killed by defective products, and even suicides. Ethics problems in law and business can be extremely destructive. Hopefully over time society will become a lot less tolerant of these problems, but I won't hold my breath.

    3. Re:Should be fined into oblivion... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Fine, mister anal retentive, corporate executives with stock options have an extremely powerful incentive to inflate unsustainable revenue to the point of collapse, to raise short term share price as much as possible beyond the option price, exercise those options and sell just as fucking fast as possible, before the corporation explodes from extremely bad short term decision making. Do you like the reality better, is was just the polite way to express the idea about maximising SHORT TERM profits and fuck the future, that is some one else's problem after the psychopath corporate executives have moved on or at the very least picked up their golden parachute.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:Should be fined into oblivion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not disputing your point, but ShanghaiBill mentioned revenue and you reference profit. They aren't the same thing.

    5. Re:Should be fined into oblivion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a myth. Public companies have no legal obligation to maximize profits.

      So who cares? They do it so often it might as well be true. Or you think they do it for shits and giggles?

  3. "Friendly Fraud" by WCMI92 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just like Facebook's "privacy" settings. On Facebook privacy is not seen to be in the interest of the collective, Comrade.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  4. There is non-fraudulent advertisement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would that even be?

    Something like a table of products, with product properties that were measured with standardized procedures as columns, and numbers with SI units as values?
    I think that's called a good product/price comparison website. (I'd say "Like geizhals.at/skinflint.co.uk.", but I'd have to provide measurable proof... which gets us to the core of the problem. :)

  5. Phone companies by DidgetMaster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Kind of like how the phone companies will do nothing to stop all the Robocalls, spam calls, and scammers from faking their caller ID. They don't want to hurt the revenue coming from those sources. Who cares about their regular subscribers. At least with Facebook, you are not paying for anything (unless you are stupid enough to give them your credit card info). I log on to Facebook about twice a year. I can't go that long without using my phone.

    1. Re:Phone companies by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup.

      When I was a kid, we took phone calls seriously, and would jump to pick up the phone to be polite to the caller. That (perhaps overzealous) enthusiasm was a valuable social contract.

      4 years ago, I turned off the ringer on my landline. I was getting 20x as many spam calls as real human beings that I know. I was even on the Do Not Call Registry already.

      Now I have a new phone service that came with the fiber, and it filters out most spam, but I still leave my ringer off. I get emailed a note if someone leaves a message -- nothing but spam so far.

      Nobody but a business answers their phone when it is a stranger. We just ignore unless a text comes in first, explaining why we should pick up. But we will eventually read the transcript of the message maybe.

      The phone companies have successfully destroyed a huge amount of goodwill around their product. Gone.

    2. Re:Phone companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like how the phone companies will do nothing to stop all the Robocalls, spam calls, and scammers from faking their caller ID.

      I always thought this was specious - Ever notice how phone companies can't find out who is making spam calls, yet they have no problem finding where to send the bill.

    3. Re:Phone companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that this is 100% a US problem. It doesn't happen in Europe (well, most of Europe, haven't checked all countries), not in Latin America, not in Arab countries, not in Japan and probably not most of elsewhere. Your social system is so fucked up that robocallers are able to bribe your phone operators. Which is saying something, because corruption is common in many places but not this ridiculous kind of it.

    4. Re:Phone companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canadian here. I can confirm this problem is not exclusive to the United States. God, how I wish it were.

    5. Re:Phone companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I log on to Facebook about twice a year.

      I've never logged into Facebook and never will. I never trusted Zuckerberg and I have been vindicated. There was a time when everyone thought you were crazy not to be on Facebook. Who's laughing now?

    6. Re:Phone companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phone companies have successfully destroyed a huge amount of goodwill around their product. Gone.

      This is so true. The phone call as we knew it is now more or less obsolete. In twenty more years it will be relegated to history and museums, like the telegram. There will still be voice and video chat services of course, but the phone number and POTS will no longer exist for most people day to day.

    7. Re:Phone companies by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      That is an interesting point. We will have an address for our mobile computer, but there is no logical reason it has to be a phone number or email address. That is an artifact of the phone cell system as we know it. Obviously "8G" or whatever that then exists will have to track mobile computers by some means, but messaging, voice, video will be registered to some service on the cloud that will do necessary forwarding.

      I guess that is a question: Under the hood, what does these cell services use? What is actually necessary?

  6. Re:"Friendly Fraud" - Nobody say Drumpf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're trying to pretend FB has a... Communist motive, instead of a blatantly shamelessly robber-baronly Capitalist motive and execution, including selling out our national elections and lying to Congress about it?

    One thing about the Soviet/Chinese Communists... they don't go outside the family like that. They realize they shit where they eat.

  7. When the truth hurts your business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There may be a problem with your business.

    1. Re:When the truth hurts your business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      replace business with Presidency, as in some cases, the two are interchangeable? #Too soon, emoluments clause?

    2. Re:When the truth hurts your business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has not stopped Google, or the many others..

    3. Re:When the truth hurts your business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea what the hell your talking about. There are MANY other political figures (democrats) that lie lie lie, and no one seems to care. When someone that has never been a politician and says some shit everyone goes crazy train. hypocrisy at its finest!!

    4. Re:When the truth hurts your business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google monitors and controls so much of the Internet that they can spot any data leaks from their network before the general public notices, plus then they can de-list and/or memory-hole everything away before anyone else notices. Facebook, not so much.

  8. You mean not a company at all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    By a company, you mean a for-profit one, right? One that will die or be eaten if another on makes more profit for long enough? One that hence will put profit above everything, to beat the others who prioritize profit higher than they do?

    That kind of private company? ...

    How about just having a standardized protocol? With federated servers and clients written by anyone who adheres to the protocol?
    Like e-mail, or IRC or XMPP or news groups or file sharing networks or everything that came before the inner-platform anti-pattern paragon called the "modern web" / web 2.0 / HTML5.

  9. Crank privacy laws up to 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Inalienable privacy rights would cause facebook to bleed to death, but better still, nothing like facebook could ever grow back.

    Social media is cancer that should never have been allowed to spread for 15 years.

    1. Re:Crank privacy laws up to 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Social media is cancer that should never have been allowed to spread for 15 years.

      Says the dood posting on an anti-social media site.

    2. Re:Crank privacy laws up to 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry you're too young and literally missed the internet.
      Everything good came and went before social media existed.

    3. Re:Crank privacy laws up to 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, in the olden days, we had hot grits. Just ask Natalie Portman's pants.

  10. Karma by jrumney · · Score: 2

    Documents related to the case were placed under seal because Facebook successfully argued that releasing them to the public could harm its business.

    I don't see the issue with Facebook's business being harmed because of the actions revealed in those documents. I'm glad the court eventually saw sense and unsealed them.

    1. Re:Karma by dk20 · · Score: 1

      This.

      why do companies get to do bad things, then hide it? If they were concerned around the public opinion here, why not do the right things instead?

    2. Re:Karma by srmalloy · · Score: 1

      I must not have ethics. Ethics are the revenue-killer. Ethics are the little weakness that brings total bankruptcy. I will face my ethics. I will permit them to pass over me and through me. And when they have gone past I will alter my marketing to increase margins. Where my ethics have gone there will be nothing. Only profits will remain.

    3. Re:Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must not have ethics. Ethics are the revenue-killer. Ethics are the little weakness that brings total bankruptcy. I will face my ethics. I will permit them to pass over me and through me. And when they have gone past I will alter my marketing to increase margins. Where my ethics have gone there will be nothing. Only profits will remain.

      I kind of fear what I will be if I ever give up my ethics, though I'd likely have a much higher paying job now if I had done so. Bullshit sells far more than skill and accomplishments. Needless to say it is tempting at times... What I should probably do is at least say nothing rather than being too honest. It still seems the way to the dark side to me though...

      As far as facebook goes, make them pay back every dime they think was spent fraudulently. If it destroys them, well i'm fine with that.

  11. Teenage girls have confirmed: Facebook is dying by jrumney · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Last week I was sitting next to two teenage girls on a 3 hour flight. During part of their conversation, one was talking to the other about someone else who had messaged her, then got upset when she didn't reply.

    You know, I haven't even opened Facebook in like 3 months

    Actually, now that you mention it, me neither

    Who even uses Facebook anymore, anyway.

    Yeah, I'm like too busy with living my life. It was taking up so much of my time, and for what?

    Life is so much better without it, isn't it.

    This went on for some time, as conversations between teenage girls tend to, and I can't bore you with the rest of the details, as I tuned out myself, but clearly Facebook has lost this target audience.

    1. Re:Teenage girls have confirmed: Facebook is dying by mentil · · Score: 1

      Facebook is now for seniors who WISH they could be busy living their lives.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:Teenage girls have confirmed: Facebook is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Facebook is big enough to simply buy up their competitors, like they did with WhatsApp, or copy all their features if the company refuses to sell. It'll be awhile until Facebook falls, if for no other reason than marketing departments have invested so much into it that they'll refuse to see if failing and will continue to try to hold it up.

      I'm really surprised Facebook (and eBay) doesn't have a cloud service offering like the other big tech companies. They should have the hardware experience and infrastructure for it.

    3. Re:Teenage girls have confirmed: Facebook is dying by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      I'm really surprised Facebook (and eBay) doesn't have a cloud service offering like the other big tech companies. They should have the hardware experience and infrastructure for it.

      I'm not, would you trust them with your data?

      Google vacuums up data about Internet users but it has a good record on not sharing it with third parties. Their cloud offerings are limited and you know exactly how they could be abused.

      Amazon has little incentive to violate your business's privacy, yes, they use your purchase and Amazon browsing history to make recommendations, but they have never - to the best of my knowledge - strayed out of that zone, so third parties have little reason to believe they'd be abusive.

      Facebook has a record of selling extremely confidential data to the highest bidder, and has shown zero scruples when it comes to privacy. No corporation in their right mind is going to trust them to host anything.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Teenage girls have confirmed: Facebook is dying by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      People are reminded this all of the time, Zuck: They "trust me", Zuck: Dumb fucks https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/.... A leopard, or slimey cunt, do not change their ways. Facebook have a history of faking subscriber numbers pretty much from it's conception, this has been reported on before. Stupid enough to use Facebook, well from the CEO's own mouth, you are a 'DUMB FUCK' and we should mock you (fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on me) and mock you and mock you some more (if you use facebook).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:Teenage girls have confirmed: Facebook is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a pleasant thought to think Facebook is kaput, but then who are all those ad viewers who support all the advertisers who pay billions to Facebook? It seems to be something like $20B/year net.

      That's a half-serious question. I've never been on Facebook or any other social media sites, but I do follow developments out of curiosity. Maybe the kids are moving to Instagram because they're weary of reading? And that's owned by Facebook. I think this is a much deeper dilemma than whether the bad guy du jour gets dropped by a few teenage girls.

    6. Re:Teenage girls have confirmed: Facebook is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to set up bots to falsify ad views and clickthroughs. I would not be surprised if a lot of these companies like Facebook are defrauding their own ad partners.

      Regular-ass people used to do this sort of thing all the time to get onto shady ROM hosting sites decades ago. What's to say that well-funded billion-dollar corporations -- who have entire departments dedicated to algorithmic research, machine learning and AI development -- would not engage in the same deception with a much higher level of sophistication? After all, this very discussion is happening underneath a summary describing Facebook's involvement with fraud!

      This is, of course, just a guess on my part, but I tell you, if any evidence of Facebook defrauding their ad partners is ever revealed to be true, THAT ALONE will kill Facebook faster than any amount of government regulation could ever hope to accomplish. They wouldn't even need to sue (although they'd probably be entitled to,) they could just pull out and watch Facebook die slowly as all the money bleeds out of its corpse. Let's cross our fingers and hope Facebook's ego inflates to the size where they do fuck up in such a way while failing to adequately cover it up.

    7. Re:Teenage girls have confirmed: Facebook is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to set up bots to falsify ad views and clickthroughs.

      And it isn't even fraud. If someone loads a page, they load a page. No obligation to actually read it. IF a server farm load some page 10 000 times in order to drive up click revenue, it is not fraud. They didn't promise not to do it. It is only idiots paying for communications. It used to work; I hope we get so much of this that it breaks ad revenue. Then ads die.

    8. Re:Teenage girls have confirmed: Facebook is dying by thomn8r · · Score: 1

      clearly Facebook has lost this target audience.

      You clearly don't understand Facebook's "target" audience: everyone. Every [man|woman|genderfluid|otherkin|*] - which is why they've infiltrated so many other platforms to slurp in their data, whether they actually use the facebook app/site or not.

    9. Re:Teenage girls have confirmed: Facebook is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary. You clearly don't understand the word "this".

  12. we don't understand Facebook by crgrace · · Score: 1

    Well obviously you guys don't understand Facebook!

    https://gizmodo.com/mark-zuckerberg-thinks-you-dont-trust-facebook-because-1832040327

  13. If a company acts so badly that... by rnturn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... its customers find that, after getting the run-around, their best recourse is to take the company to court for a remedy, perhaps those details ought to be made public and the company deserves to have its business harmed a little. That would, at least, give the rest of us the opportunity to decide whether we want to begin or continue dealing with that company.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  14. Remember when Republicans were NOT traitors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tacitly, like a simplistic moron, you are saying that "one lie" is as bad as "any other lie" - which I think you know isn't true. You want to actually count the lies, per individual, per time period? We can go there.

    No one seems to care? I care. Ocasio-Cortez fumbled some stats pretty hard, she has to fix that. Is that as bad as lying about BEING IN THE POCKET OF THE RUSSIAN MOB, YOU FUCKING ACTUAL TRAITOR?

    moron.
     

    1. Re:Remember when Republicans were NOT traitors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yessssss, keep driving that wedge between Trump and Russia. Let's get this nuke party started! Save the planet, MFer's!!

  15. Zuckerberg is Sick by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    Making these decisions is just rapacious behavior & FB runs the risk of users just melting away. It won't happen until it takes money right off the bottom line in their quarterly reports, though.

  16. Sounds Like RICO Time by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

    When a group of people who are profiting from fraud, and are aware of it, get together and decide to take no action so that they can continue to profit, that sounds like a criminal conspiracy.

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  17. Re:"Friendly Fraud" - Nobody say Drumpf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uhm, the Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg wanted to make a run for president to institute Universal Basic Income... That sounds a bit anti-capitalism and a lot like a communism to me.

  18. subject subject subjetc by Falos · · Score: 1

    Was it that much money?

    I'm genuinely asking. If it was a significant amount, I can at least understand the reasoning behind discreet indulgence. Conversely I'd expect a corporation to be disinterested in pocket change, if it risks brand image.

    If it wasn't that much money, it suggests corporations have a strong confidence in keeping their transactions to their chest, their laundry hidden, are willing to compromise the "customer" for even small gains.

    If it WAS that much money, it's just good old american capitalism morals and I don't need to recalibrate my predictions.

    1. Re:subject subject subjetc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was it that much money?

      Heh, who ties a credit card to facebook, to be used freely by them? That invites such 'games', but it only hits the stupid. Don't give them a credit card - or just a fake number. When some kid tries to buy in-game stuff, it simply fails. Problem solved.

  19. Re:"Friendly Fraud" - Nobody say Drumpf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because you're a moron who doesn't read or understand that it's actually an economic stimulus in a time of top-heavy inequality and lack of spending money at the base, derp. Economists > Laymen > lazy assholes > Republicans

  20. WTF? No, I can't manage that amicusNYCL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Quit IMPERSONATING me & trying to "frame" me loser + proof my program doesn't allow portfilters https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... so you LOSE, loser.

    * amicusNYCL I know it's you, but I also KNOW you had to EAT YOUR WORDS vs. me (lol, oh the memories) https://slashdot.org/comments.... & RAN vs. https://slashdot.org/comments.... & that you RAN from a FAIR CHALLENGE I gave you YOU CAN'T MEET or BEAT "Forrest" https://science.slashdot.org/c...

    APK

    P.S.=> Lastly, YOU amicusNYCL FAKE NAME loser TRIED to 'frame me' before for the same type of things https://science.slashdot.org/c... & I told you off for it there too, loser https://science.slashdot.org/c... - so go away, freak... apk

  21. Social Media â" meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FB, Twitter, SnapChat, : meh. The rub is that whatever the band wagon & sanctimommies go to next will be even more annoying.

  22. What is the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a Crime was committed and there is sufficient evidence to prove the crime, then the Facebook Directors should be criminally prosecuted, together with any other company employee (including the CEO) who knowingly took part in the commission of the crime.

    If no crime was committed, then what is the problem?

    You may not "like" what Facebooks' Directors and employee's decided to do, however, you did willingly participate.

    And if you did not willingly participate but suffered damage (even though your were negligent) you can try suing.

    Otherwise you are unaffected and should shut the fuck up!

  23. Re:"Friendly Fraud" - Nobody say Drumpf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love the sound of communists going ape-shit over being called out as communists.

  24. Stop posting the antisemitic spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all know you're responsible for the two long antisemitic spam posts in this story. It appears you don't like the consequences of your shitposting. Too bad. It's also hilarious how you think EVERY AC is amicusNYCL now, just like you thought every AC was c6gunner. Grow up.

    1. Re:Stop posting the antisemitic spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's antisemitic in facts you don't prove incorrect jews themselves provide from their own beliefs\misdoings https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... ? If that's all you have against fact you are in sad shape.

    2. Re:Stop posting the antisemitic spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's ok for jews to say non-jews are cattle to be robbed, to have our little girls raped by jews and to kill non-jews? That's what you're saying. It appears you don't want those facts out.

  25. Say it isn't so by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Facebook cheat people? ME SO SHOCKED, SO VERY VERY SHOCKED

    (and fuck your all caps filter error, give me a break.)

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  26. Greed is NOT good. by dbreeze · · Score: 1

    1 Timothy 6:10 KJV - For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

    --
    When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
  27. Yes, you'd like it to look that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Especially when you as the accuser's the actual 'false flag' perpetrator per your impersonating me lying https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... there!

    Which I shot down in reply https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... using facts.

    I didn't just think it about c6gunner: I know it with proof https://linux.slashdot.org/com...

    amicusNYCL's too busy EATING HIS WORDS to talk (lol) https://slashdot.org/comments.... & RAN vs. https://slashdot.org/comments....

    (Which I know the CHATTERING little TWAT behind his FAKE NAME can't do a thing vs. as he is a DO-NOTHING punk "ne'er-do-well" TALKER & that's it - that's vs. the garbage he spewed @ me in posts before both...).

    APK

    P.S.=> I must admit I found it an interesting read/informative what you bitch about though when YOU POSTED IT, clearly (not I)... apk

  28. I'm a communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cheap debt was used to extend the life of consumer capitalism.
    I reject UBI because it's a capitalist program to extend the life of capitalism.
    I reject social democratic policies (what you would call socialism) for a similar reason.

    Thanks for the free healthcare ... but fuck the ruling class, we're taking democratic ownership of the means of production.
    Thanks for the free social housing ... but fuck the ruling class, we're taking democratic ownership of the means of production.
    Thanks for the UBI stipend ... but fuck the ruling class, we're taking democratic ownership of the means of production.

  29. Facebook is identity theft by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    A massive scheme. If the truth were required in the URL it's address would be, "steammyidentityandemptymybankaccount.com"

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:Facebook is identity theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A massive scheme. If the truth were required in the URL it's address would be, "steammyidentityandemptymybankaccount.com"

      stealmyidentityandemptymybankaccount.com
      and
      streammyidentityandemptymybankaccount.com
      were already taken?
      Or in order to be truthful since they were doing both, the websites had to be combined?