Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Writes To European Commission About Facebook's Lack of Ad Transparency (betanews.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tussle-continues dept.

Mark Wilson writes: Facebook has been no stranger to controversy and scandal over the years, but things have been particularly bad over the last twelve months. The latest troubles find Mozilla complaining to the European Commission about the social network's lack of transparency, particularly when it comes to political advertising. Mozilla's Chief Operating Officer, Denelle Dixon, has penned a missive to Mariya Gabriel, the European Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society. She bemoans the fact that Facebook makes it impossible to conduct analysis of ads, and this in turn prevents Mozilla from offering full transparency to European citizens -- something it sees as important in light of the impending EU elections.

64 comments

  1. It should be the DoJ by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If anyone should be investigating them, it should be the SEC and DoJ because of all of the hinky things that have come out like their tolerance for "friendly fraud," the number of bots (goosing stats to sell ads) and such.

    While we're at it, what we really need is something like Brave's wallet/patron system to go global and burn the ad industry to the ground.

    1. Re:It should be the DoJ by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Informative

      DoJ is America, European Commission is European.

      In terms of rules and friendliness to corporations they are very different. A liberal America is still a conservative (Probably closer to middle of the road) Europe. Telling Facebook what to do from the DoJ or the SEC just isn't going to happen.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re: It should be the DoJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So seriously Facebook has a problem and the problem is that Facebook is literally tone deaf. You could suggest anything to Facebook and they would not hear what you said. They would only hear one of the small list of things they can understand. There is literally no point in even having a discussion with Facebook until they can realize how they sound to everyone else, which is just a bizarre mini culture with their own language and outsiders are simply ignored or unwelcome. Itâ(TM)s literally their way or the highway even when they have no control over what way someone chooses

    3. Re: It should be the DoJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but America has bigger problems like Caravans, Dodge Caravans full of children to separate from their parents, plutonium to ship across the country, and corporations to succor from the cruelty of being called to account for the opiod crisis they induced.

      It is a thing. The US cannot waste time on petty grievances. Let Facebook be free, as a rich powerful and beloved organisation they will do best without regulations.

    4. Re:It should be the DoJ by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 0

      While we're at it, what we really need is something like Brave's wallet/patron system to go global and burn the ad industry to the ground.

      WTF is "Brave"?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    5. Re:It should be the DoJ by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Yeah and a European conservative is probably considered liberal or closer to the middle of the road for the US.

    6. Re: It should be the DoJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh they are completely missing the whole point. The home pages need to have the links to everything and just sprinkle the ads around. But they donâ(TM)t do that. Instead they completely obscure the home page with irrelevant ads.

    7. Re:It should be the DoJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A web browser.

    8. Re:It should be the DoJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're oversimplifying. Europe today has its fair share of actual nazis and fascists.

      And, judging by who they tend to align themselves with, they consider themselves firmly on the conservative end of the political spectrum.

    9. Re:It should be the DoJ by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      DoJ is America, European Commission is European.

      Both Mozilla and Facebook are American companies... This is an example of jurisdiction shopping (trying to find a regulator who is friendly to your point of view instead of the one who is appropriate to your location.)

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    10. Re:It should be the DoJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL - you are oversimplifing. "I'm liberal and don't want to be linked as a fascist or nazi so I'll ignore all evidence and say that they are conservatives."

      On social issues, most facists and nazis mirror liberal policies.

      You look at the military aspect and try to act like that makes them conservatives

    11. Re:It should be the DoJ by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what they call themselves unless you believe the Nazis choosing to call themselves socialist mean they were socialists

  2. What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    HEY MOZILLA! How much money are you getting to integrate Pocket into Firefox?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by KixWooder · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's publically available if you would have taken two seconds to look. Mozilla bought and owns Pocket.

      https://assets.mozilla.net/ann...

      --
      I hate fat people.
    2. Re: What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not so concerned about as transparency. I think people see ads all the time they ignore or maybe not even know are ads. I would prefer that accidentally clicking on an ad not automatically start sucking in data and signing you up for stuff. It is not that hard to run ads in an ethical manner. All you need is to look at amazon one click to see how you ought to handle clicking behavior.

    3. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's publically available if you would have taken two seconds to look. Mozilla bought and owns Pocket.

      I did look, but they didn't exactly trumpet the fact that they spent $30M of donations on something nobody asked for, while simultaneously ignoring those things people did ask for, like a clean browser without unnecessary features built in when they belong in extensions. Since I didn't know they actually bought them, I didn't know where to look. Now that I do, I can see the articles which were published about it at the time.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's worth reading TFA because it is much more interesting than the summary.

      Mozilla wants to build some kind of in-browser tool to assist with the up-coming European elections. The tool will look at your Facebook feed and the ads you see an provide some kind of break-down on who is targeting you. Or at least it would have, but some recent change to Facebook has apparently made it impossible.

      This kind of transparency could actually be a really powerful tool. In fact Facebook should build it in to their platform.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trouble is no one can agree what unnecessary features are.

      You might reasonably argue that anything that can be an extension should be an extension.

      Unfortunately that makes Firefox out of the box kind of annoying and useless. For many users if they have to download a bunch of extensions to stop it sucking, they'll just think it sucks and go right back to chrome. So features that are technically unnecessary are socially necessary in order for Firefox to maintain its market share.

      Also another thing is that Mozilla is championing the cause of the open web without spying. In practice that means they need to provide services that people like Google provide in order to do so in a way that isn't evil.

      That's their reasoning and its sound in general. No idea if its sound in the case of pocket though.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow. I'm totally reading this from you right now:

      Mozilla should only work on what *I* want, because what *I* want is what "people" want. Forget what others want (they're not even people!). Forget the web. Forget working on making ads bearable until they can be replaced with a better solution. Mozilla should *only* be working on what *I* want! And you can totally trust me that I'm right about what Mozilla does, because I'm so well-informed that I haven't read their blog posts over the past few years and didn't even know that Pocket is owned by them! That's the kind of people Mozilla needs to work for!

    7. Re: What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, sorry but I see zero ads for anything unless I want to see them which is almost never. I use Linux and Firefox and have for over 12 years on my home computer. Also do not have a smartphone or a TV, so I am very sensitive to ads. I see none on any website.

    8. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      You might reasonably argue that anything that can be an extension should be an extension.
      Unfortunately that makes Firefox out of the box kind of annoying and useless.

      I see that response to that argument all the time, but it's silly. Just bundle all the extensions needed to make it a typical browser with the install. This has obvious benefits. I can just not install them, or at least disable them once the install is complete. Also, they can be updated by the user independently of the browser, so it's an opportunity to deliver updates for those components without the user having to redownload everything.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Wow. I'm totally reading this from you right now:

      No, you aren't. You're making it up in your own head.

      Forget the web.

      That's exactly what they have done.

      And you can totally trust me that I'm right about what Mozilla does, because I'm so well-informed that I haven't read their blog posts over the past few years and didn't even know that Pocket is owned by them!

      Yeah, read their blog. That's going to be a good use of my time. I can see exactly how they're ignoring the users.

      Nobody asked for pocket. We had extensions that were superior, in that they didn't require giving some third party information on what we were viewing. Then they changed the plugin interface, and broke them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, you can disable pocket super trivially.

    11. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can not only make any feature an extension, you can also ship the installer with a bunch of Mozilla provided extensions already installed. That way, people get the ootb experience they want, but tinkerers have the ability to remove anything they consider superfluous.

      It also forces Mozilla to dogfood their own API. When the tab management, download manager, cookie management, and bookmarks that come with Firefox use the same API extensions have to use, there is a genuine opportunity for extension developers to gain feature parity, should they insist.

    12. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      But you'd still run into the situation of figuring out just what the non-exetension version of Firefox would include.

      Also, isn't that available now anyway? It's FOSS so take out as much as you want I guess?

    13. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      They changed the plugin interface because it was a major cause of all the memory leakage people complained about.

      It's almost as if people expecting to do whatever they want to a piece of software without any repercussions is an impossible demand.

    14. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No, I'm not making it all up in my head, you are."

      "Well, *my* head-cannon is that they're forgetting the web and ignoring their users, so there."

      "Nobody asked for X, because clearly everyone is the same as me, and knew about its older addon version, and would prefer it stayed as an addon, and that the addon system stayed as it was."

      Yeah, I'm sure Mozilla would have been way better off catering to the "everyone" in your head. After all, things were perfectly ok back then, and would have been even better if Mozilla just did what you wanted instead.

    15. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. I'm totally reading this from you right now:

      Mozilla should only work on what *I* want, because what *I* want is what "people" want. Forget what others want (they're not even people!). ...

      Are you new to Slashdot? That's the response to literally any article about any software is here.

    16. Re: What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then just keep checking back with the ads on of your choice and maybe someday they will have something worth talking about

    17. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just bundle all the extensions needed to make it a typical browser with the install. This has obvious benefits. I can just not install them, or at least disable them once the install is complete.

      That would be nice, I agree. At least that last bit is already possible, you can easily disable Pocket by setting 'extensions.pocket.enabled' to false in about:config.

      A lot of other unwanted Firefox features can be disabled in about:config. This project does a great job at keeping track of all of them:
      https://github.com/ghacksuserjs/ghacks-user.js

    18. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      But you'd still run into the situation of figuring out just what the non-exetension version of Firefox would include.

      Browsing, bookmarks, preferences, and the most basic of pop-up blockers would be included — and all of those but browsing should be an extension. Everything else including Pocket, Web Developer tools, etc. would also be extensions, but which were not enabled by default.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trouble is no one can agree what unnecessary features are.

      You might reasonably argue that anything that can be an extension should be an extension.

      Unfortunately that makes Firefox out of the box kind of annoying and useless.

      Not an extension, but something you turn on/off in about:config.

      Don't want blink tags? Turn them off. A toggle for every tag wouldn't be all that hard to pull off. Don't want third party cookies? Turn them off. Don't even want javascript? Turn off the support. Don't want images? Turn them off. Yes - there used to be setting for turning off images, to conserve expensive bandwidth.

    20. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kind of transparency could actually be a really powerful tool. In fact Facebook should build it in to their platform.

      Therefore, they probably have it already. Facebook collect info on people, to provide ads they think fits them. Surely they track who buys ads too. If nothing else, in order to bill them. But also to sell demographics as they think fits them. "Your last campaign targeted conservatives age 40-50, you may also want to target some ads at conservatives age 50-60, very similar groups..."

    21. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla is spy city. There's well over 100 about:config options that must be changed before their browser comes anywhere close to being trustworthy. Pings to goog and facebook, telemetry all over the place, facial recognition turned on by default. So by the time the user thinks about installing an adblock you are already fingerprinted. They are a disgrace, no better than the big US tech companies.

    22. Re: What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we'll end up with nothing nice at all because people don't want to actually do anything, just armchair quarterback until their team leaves town, and then act like it was the team's fault for not listening to them.

    23. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Logically, all of those things should be extensions. As should the Javascript engine, CSS rendering and all forms of video playback.

      Are you starting to see yet why they don't do it?

    24. Re:What about Mozilla's lack of ad transparency? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Logically, all of those things should be extensions. As should the Javascript engine, CSS rendering and all forms of video playback.

      No, you need Javascript a) to run many extensions to begin with and b) just to browse the web any more. CSS, ditto. Video playback I could see going either way, but making that an add-on wouldn't be a horrible PITA on the same level as js.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Come on Mozilla, you should already know this... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2, Funny

    <div style="opacity: 0;">ad</div>

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  4. Don't like it? Quote "DARK CITY" film... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & "SHUT IT DOWN" via about:config & this:

    extensions.pocket.enabled = FALSE

    * Correct me IF I'm off/wrong folks - feel free IF I am (not 110% totally SURE on this setting is all anymore). What I DO KNOW is that I don't see pocket anymore & it IS configurable.

    APK

    P.S.=> Double-check that - but, IIRC, that cuts off "pocket" (or you can just tell FF to show a BLANK page on new tabs etc.)... apk

  5. Easy Fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if (IP==facebook) then hostfile_block(IP);

  6. Mo$illa by xack · · Score: 0

    With "experiments" that advertise. Too bad that Firefox forks sold out too. We really need a truly independent browser foundation.

  7. FireFox almost "F'd up" hosts use too but... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: These settings in about:config re-enable NORMAL IP stack use (file/hosts 1st vs. local DNS cache crap in slower usermode (especially when Windows SLOW usermode service for it showed up SECURITY ISSUES in it & breaks down (due to limited size, STUPID & Linux does well MINUS that (unless you turn off systemd's portion, which again, YOU CAN easily)):

    network.dnsCacheEntries 0
    network.trr.mode to 5 (SHUTS IT OFF)
    network.trr.uri (set to 208.67.222.222)

    * ALL PART OF THE CRAP the PERFIDIOUS JOOgle pulled trying to FORCE slower (& soon to be broken AGAIN) TLS (remember SSL anyone? "Gosh, what happened?" BS they pull 'changing the rules' when they CAN'T DEFEAT what DEFEAT THEM (ala hosts https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... & WHAT THEY DID TO UBlock + OTHER inferior to hosts browser addons...))

    APK

    P.S.=> Not "every site" NEEDS the slowup of HTTPS either (nobody on EARTH can tell me that shit)... apk

  8. Re: FireFox almost "F'd up" hosts use too but... a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is with all the nonsense?

  9. Its time to regulate Facebook by Arzaboa · · Score: 2

    Facebook has been given every chance in the world to act right. It was just a couple of years ago where Mark Z. thought it was "ridiculous" that his platform could be used to cause chaos in elections. If these people wanted to actually do something right for the world, they would rebuild this platform from the bottom up. If they wanted to help, they would shut the misinformation pipelines down and lead by example. I do not know one person that uses the site that appreciates political advertisements.

    People should not have to be on high alert for propaganda every single second that they are on some site while checking their kids soccer schedule. People do not work this way. It is not an OK policy to teach people to recognize and ignore "fake-news" while acting like it doesn't affect people. One of the primary ways propaganda works is by bombarding people with misinformation, even if they know its a tabloid, click-bait headline. Simply by using brain power to try to ignore what one is trying to see, it registers in people's thoughts that they have seen this. Human beings do not simply ignore this stuff. It is not how the human mind works. Human beings can not be bombarded with this stuff without it affecting them.

    Facebook's game plan seems to be, if something happens, don't change the model but add an investigative department to sort out the worst of the worst. This may work in a court of law to "prove" they are trying but this does not solve the issue, and its not genuine. For these platforms to not be propaganda machines, it can not be allowed in the first place.

    At this point, because Facebook will not take action themselves, it is time to regulate Facebook. As far as I'm concerned, Facebook and the rest of its platforms should only be able to run ads for products and services until there is a true method to the madness. It is not OK to test these new band-aids on their user-base, when their user-base is 2.1 Billion people, 1/4 of the planet.

    These platforms are causing immediate and irreparable harm to the world, and it is not possible for them to unwind this one ad at a time. These products and their models need to be rewritten from the ground up for the common good of the planet, and to genuinely work in favor of the end-user and society in general.

    --
    A squirrel dying in front of your house may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa. - Mark Zuckerburg

    1. Re:Its time to regulate Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People should not have to be on high alert for propaganda every single second that they are on some site while checking their kids soccer schedule. People do not work this way.

      People don't need to work that way either. When they check a soccer schedule, they aren't reading news. So what is the problem? If they get some political drivel in their "feed", so what? Facebook isn't written by journalists, it is well known that it is all dubious opinions - with faults and all - no better than gossip or those guys standing on soapboxes telling you the end is near.

      It is not an OK policy to teach people to recognize and ignore "fake-news" while acting like it doesn't affect people.

      It is ok to tell them Facebook is just gossip, not a news source. No need to try to recognise fake news, ALL of facebook-news is propaganda. If you want news, get it elsewhere. If you want kittens or local interest groups or propaganda streams, use facebook.

      A squirrel dying in front of your house may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa. - Mark Zuckerburg

      So true. Africa is far away, and they can solve their problems themselves. They are richer in natural resources, and have access to all our knowledge. Do not demand that we should "care" for them too. Zuck may do many bad things, but in this he is right.

  10. Simple & works + how/why... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On systemd "dnscache" bs, turn it off via NetworkManager.conf in Linux via dns=208.67.222.222 + sudo service network-manager restart commandline & resolv.conf (under etc. & /run/systemd/resolve/ too to:

    search 208.67.222.222 ::ffff:208.67.220.220
    nameserver 208.67.222.222
    nameserver 208.67.220.220

    * OpenDNS = PATCHED vs. DNS poisoning & 95++% of ISP DNS aren't & DHC issued warnings vs. DNS redirect poisoning attacks https://threatpost.com/gov-war...

    Your fav sites where you spend MOST TIME's via my program below @ TOP of hosts cached in RAM (kernelmode faster OS diskcache subsystem vs. slow usermode cache)

    APK

    P.S.=> To avoid DNS issues + dns requestlog tracking + to RESOLVE FASTER LOCALLY from SYSTEM RAM?

    APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x . z i p (remove spaces between chars & DL)

    APK Hosts File Engine 10++ 64-bit for Windows https://hosts-file.net/?s=Down...

  11. Again, IF you're against "pocket"? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & SHUT IT DOWN per https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

    * This is WHY I like FireFox &/or Linux - their devs are SMART ENOUGH & good enough @ software engineering + DESIGN to leave things "re-parameterizable" & FAIR/HONEST (even though they TRY 'sneak-in' things I don't like in systemd https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... OR FF itself https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (which, I truly suspect, is @ the BEHEST of the PERFIDIOUS JOOgle & IF LEFT UNCHECKED, takes advantage of those IGNORANT to these parameterizations freedoms you DO have...)

    APK

    P.S.=> & as I said in those posts? DO learn about what you CAN DO to resolv.conf, FF's about:config & /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf & nsswitch.conf (latter controls RESOLUTION ORDER) too

    1. Re: Again, IF you're against "pocket"? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, can you maybe add a feature to your hosts file software to disable all this stuff for me? I'm sure a properly configured hosts file would have it all cleared up in no time.

  12. Shouldn't this violate their non-profit status? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pocket
      seems like a pretty good example of some kind of money laundering given
      that the owner of the purchased product was the son of a Mozilla
    executive, and this purposes sole purpose was to transfer donations from
      the non-profit company to the the shareholders of the for-profit
    company.

    In fact, why can a non-profit even buy a for-profit company, unless it
    is in bankruptcy proceedings and the purchase is in order to turn a
    failing for-profit business into a non-profit in order to continue
    operations?

  13. Stay away from politics by xonen · · Score: 1

    I like Firefox, but i wish Mozilla would stay away from politics.

    Same applies to other organizations and companies by the way. Just focus what you do, and don't waste effort on lobbying or playing the public. Even despite other actors do. Just don't. Stay cool. Stay pro.

    --
    A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
    1. Re:Stay away from politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, this *is* what Mozilla does. It's their entire mission as an NPO, in fact. What did you think they do?

  14. Zuckerberg for prison by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    After what came out yesterday of Facebook deliberately stealing information from children for profit, it is clear that Facebook must be shut down and Zuckerberg and Sandberg put in prison.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:Zuckerberg for prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zuckerberg for being air dropped into a volcano.

  15. Facebook needs to be under the microscope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its possible that Facebook is under investigation and its just not been made public. Its also possible that Facebook does questionable things but none of them are actually illegal. This is why federal governments need to step up more and create better laws requiring transparency for these technology giants.

  16. Since it's my birthday, I thought... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: "Musical accompaniment"'s in order ala "ONLY YOU can set you FREE..." per https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Cult of Personality @ position 2:53 on the youtube player control...

    * "Ask not what your country can do for you..."

    APK

    P.S.=> "The only thing we have to fear is FEAR itself" & IF you know yourself & know your opponent? Hey, lol... apk

  17. Why don't you? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & take a read, go for it https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

    * :)

    (What's stopping you? YOU)

    APK

    P.S.=> That's all I'm saying... apk

  18. Block all ads by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Thats the needed transparency.
    No ads and the ability to show no tracking.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  19. Replace Facebook by markjhood2003 · · Score: 1

    My ad-free decentralized open source Facebook replacement fantasy (FaceNet):

    • Develop a specialized web server that ingests a Facebook user's data and assets and serves up an interface with features similar to Facebook.
    • Package the web server with a suitable OS image into a Docker-like container.
    • Partner with a hosting service that hosts the container and runs the web server at cost for a reasonable price, like a few dollars a month.
    • Provide a service that takes the user's downloaded Facebook data and sets everything up with the hosting service.

    It wouldn't be free of cost, but it would be free in the broader sense, and that's a killer feature.

  20. Re: Iâ(TM)m GAYpk and ready to HOST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles. And this game is hard I never seen the fucking Technodrome.

  21. I make ads REALLY transparent (not there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Addons DON'T (busted by Chrome API) https://www.bleepingcomputer.c...

    Can't DO THAT to hosts https://developers.slashdot.or...

    Hosts don't RUN in SLOW usermode browser (more messagepass overhead & MORE if you STACK multiple addons + use MORE/do LESS vs. hosts)

    Hosts = a NATIVE PART of a kernelmode FASTER IP stack!

    * For the best hosts file multiplatform:

    APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x . z i p (remove spaces between chars & download)

    APK Hosts File Engine 10++ SR-1 32/64-bit for Windows https://hosts-file.net/?s=Down... (DL link @ bottom)

    Soon 4 MacOS!

    APK

    P.S.=> To those HIDING behind UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous STALKING (or IMPERSONATING) me + abusing "downmodpoints" to HIDE this https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (they can't defeat fact I use):

    MAKE A WHEEL https://isc.sans.edu/forums/di... as I did vs. hassling me... apk