×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Bans AdSense In Apps

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the you-guys-play-nice dept.

Facebook 130

An anonymous reader writes "Three days ago Facebook finalized their list of accepted ad networks for use within Facebook Apps; AdSense being an (unsurprising?) omission from the list, stating that any missing ad network had yet to agree to the Facebook TOS. Facebook developers were quick to point out the only losers in this cold-war between Facebook and Google are the developers themselves. Other devs go on to clarify that the reputations of some of the accepted networks is shady at best, leaving developers with sub-par options to monetize their work on the Facebook platform."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

130 comments

Google will outlast Facebook. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35393030)

So who really cares about this "debate"? Nobody who matters.

Re:Google will outlast Facebook. (0)

zegota (1105649) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393498)

The developers who want to put an app on Facebook's up-and-coming platform to attract users while using the superior (both in ease-of-use and monetization) AdSense for advertising support? I'm actually in the process of developing a webapp with an eye toward FB, and this makes me extremely squeamish. AdSense is second to none for apps/sites that aren't well known (obviously if you're Zynga or Bioware, you can partner with whoever you want, or just sell advertising directly).

So yes, this debate may not matter to people who matter (Steve Jobs? Mark Zuckerberg?), but it matters a lot to people who don't matter.

Re:Google will outlast Facebook. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35393614)

The OP is almost certainly correct in that Google will outlive FB, so really this is a mad panic about nothing at all.

A couple years from now, almost no-one will even remember "that Facebook thingy from the Stone Age", but Google will still be the search engine of choice.

And by then the developer-emos now weeping about Google vs. FB will be praying that everyone else doesn't remember how seriously they took any of this.

Re:Google will outlast Facebook. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394180)

I'm actually in the process of developing a webapp with an eye toward FB

You couldn't find anything useful to do with your life? Honestly? The community around you is so perfect that the most important thing you could find to do is create an app for Facebook? Where is this Shangri La?

I'm being absolutely serious here. Why don't you check out the Peace Corps? Your living expenses are paid, you can bank a little money for when you get back and in ten years you'll wonder how you ever could have thought that "developing a webapp with an eye toward Facebook" was worthy of your energy. It's only a two year commitment, and since you're almost certainly young you'll still have your whole life if you really insist on doing something meaningless just to make a buck.

-anon due to modding

Re:Google will outlast Facebook. (1)

siloko (1133863) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394976)

and while you're busy changing the world you've got time to post on slashdot?

umm, no (3, Interesting)

Weezul (52464) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394148)

I doubt that facebook will die, normally companies that get this big hang around indefinitely, even if they eventually turn into yahoo or aol.

There is a killer app waiting to kill facebook, namely an open source private social networking application that takes photo & video sharing to the logical extreme of friend2friend file sharing. Ideally, you'd want all communications traffic-analysis-resistant and obviously encrypted. An approach might be making FreeNet user friendly and adding a FreeNet Social Networking app, but FreeNet seems slow as piss and incapable of handling even basic IM functionality.

I doubt you'll knock out facebook without some major new feature though, like general purpose friend2friend file sharing. And you'll need solid plausible deniability before that one becomes viable.

Alternatively, all the pitiful "also ran" social networks like Tuenti, Hi5, Orkut, etc. could gang up on facebook by adopting some common shared data model. I'd expect they'll try this eventually, but like 5+ years after facebook has killed them all, and only once google starts buying them.

Another alternative might be for various countries to start legislating around social networks, requiring age verification, requiring that photos expire after 6 months, barring the data from being mirrored outside the country, barring civil servants from using foreign based social networks, etc.

Re:umm, no (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394708)

So what if they hang around like some bad smell from Ye Olden Days of the Internet? How relevant is Yahoo! or AOL these days? Companies like those are on the brink of becoming SCOs.
No doubt some people still actually use Myspace and Bebo for their intended purposes, but most former users - that is to say, 99% of users registered with those services - will have already forgotten their login names and passwords. It's not as if those companies matter any more.
And I believe that was the point.
Google will still be in use, one way or another, when the last server with any Facebook pages finally dies and is dumped in the trash in an alley out back of a crumbling datacenter with For Lease signs going up.
And nothing of value will have been lost, as the saying (or meme) goes.

Re:umm, no (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395306)

Actually, sad to say, but that Yahoo Portal thingie we geeks can't fricking stand? You know, the big bloated picture and video mess complete with horoscope? That one? Yeah that thing sadly is like the number 1 home page for nearly all that aren't geeks. yeah I know but I swear that damned thing is so popular when I come across a PC that DON'T have their homepage set to that is when I actually notice, the thing is THAT damned popular.

So I can see why MSFT wanted Yahoo and was happy to buy their searches, as the normals use that like the morning paper. Funny as hell part? Watching them actually use it after they get done looking at all the links they care to they then type Google into the Yahoo Search box to actually get to Google to do searches! Now when I asked some of them, thinking maybe they liked the Google UI or whatever over Yahoo? Nope it turned out they didn't know they could actually search with the Yahoo box and thought that was just a way to get to Google, because when you need to find stuff you "Google it" not Yahoo it!

So the point of this story dear AC is that when it comes to the masses you can't plan on shit because their ways are strange and not like us at all. Hell FB could team up with Yahoo and you could have the masses "Facebooking it" in 5 years, you just never know. After all most of us would have looked at Farmville and thought of the little rat pushing the button to get a food pellet and those guys have made money out the wazoo with the lamest ass excuse for a "game" I've ever seen.

Trying to second guess the future when it comes to mass consumers isn't easy and while I hate FB with a passion I wouldn't count them out just yet. After all I think most of us here would agree that Yahoo Portal and Farmville blow chunks yet the normals just loooove that crapola.

Re:umm, no (1)

thsths (31372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395216)

> Alternatively, all the pitiful "also ran" social networks like Tuenti, Hi5, Orkut, etc. could gang up on facebook by adopting some common shared data model.

And open social network, that would be nice. Use well defined protocols and interfaces, and you could see the same aggregated streams in facebook, in buzz or in orkut. Facebook is never going to join that, though :-).

depends (1)

Weezul (52464) | more than 3 years ago | (#35396144)

Except that's potentially among the worst approaches for users. Does this open protocol just hand over all your data to any partner that asks? Ideally no, but exactly what data becomes invisible matters. I'd hope that at least the friend graph should become only locally visible, although still individual social networking sites are big enough for that graph to be concerning.

I'm afraid the best solution would be a peer2peer system designed to prevent even traffic analysis :

- Users are identified by a SHA-512 hash of their screen name attached to an unencrypted public and an encrypted private RSA-4096 key, as well as an encrypted private user data sheet and private directory. All this information gets stored 'in the cloud' allowing users to login anywhere.

- Any information the users wants easily searchable, like real name, email, phone, etc. may float around the cloud incased in SHA-512 hashes that point to their screen name's SHA-512 hash. Any searches that fail the easy mode get shuffled into some queue for users machines to check against their data sheet whenever they come back online, maybe this search gets restricted to two or three friends hops though.

- All files are stored "in the cloud" in "directories" encrypted using AES-256. And the directory has an associated table containing copies of this AES-256 key encrypted to various participant's public key pairs.

- All directories posses two unencrypted public and encrypted private RSA-1024 key pairs. Anyone who decrypts the directory will gain access to the first of these encrypted private keys with which they can authenticate changes to the directory in the cloud. In particular, such users may add addendums that either make comments on the directory's contents or additions to the table of users permitted to access the directory. And the second private key pair gets used to authenticate changes and deletions with the cloud.

- All users store a selection of home directories in the cloud that are encrypted to various different selections of friends to provide some indexes of file directories, enable their friends to find their other friends, etc. There are no records of directory ownership or friendships stored unencrypted in the cloud.

Re:umm, no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35396258)

Facebook will in fact die. It just won't die as in "was shut off one day". It will die over time, by being bought by a larger conglomerate. I can name literally 20 separate/unique important-and-grew-fast companies who made popular things, then disappeared within 2-3 years of being bought by larger corporations, sucked into the black hole that is the corporate world -- and not just American corporate (take ICQ for instance). Think about it for a while.

I won't be surprised if someone like Microsoft ends up buying Facebook.

Re:umm, no (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 3 years ago | (#35396812)

I doubt that facebook will die

Just wait until apple gets serious about social networking.
Hell, even google might get into trouble if apple would go into the search direction.

lol no (1)

Weezul (52464) | more than 3 years ago | (#35397482)

Apple takes existing technology and polish the implementation until it fits the average user perfectly. You'll never see them deliver well on any technology that hasn't been well rehearsed elsewhere first.

In fact, their only even inkling towards new technology has been backing the LLVM project, but that's partially meant to make up for shortcomings in their BSD kernel, i.e. protecting them from needing to switch kernels to Linux or something.

Apple could obviously deliver a solid social networking application. It's an old established technology that'll benefit from polishing. Yet, I'm doubtful they'd deliver any new killer features. And their existing strong market positions won't help them much.

Apple could never handle search, way too mathematically intensive, subtle processing scalability issues, etc. And again their existing market positions are useless and they'd simply never deliver anything better than Google.

Re:Google will outlast Facebook. (0)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394172)

Honestly, it's looking like Facebook will outlast Google at this point. At least they are innovating....

your mom is fat (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35393032)

but at least she likes turtles

Re:your mom is fat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35393238)

I love lamp!

Slashdot bias (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35393034)

I love how Facebook can't do anything right as far as Slashdot is concerned. If they block ad networks, their evil...if they don't their also evil. Come on people!

Re:Slashdot bias (1)

whitehaint (1883260) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393074)

Meh, I block all ads equally.

Re:Slashdot bias (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393448)

^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file.

Re:Slashdot bias (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394950)

Oh shit. Don't ever mention that file...

Kalriath's "Bad Memories" of trolling & losing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35395682)

Why not? Bring back some BAD MEMORIES for you, Kalriath?? See URL below, for a reminder:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1687452&cid=32694426 [slashdot.org]

(After all - You started it trolling me there:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1687452&cid=32588342 [slashdot.org]

and I simply finished it (and you) off, with facts, in regards to HOSTS files... In my as-per-my "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'" usual style, vs. trolls like yourself!)

---

"Oh shit. Don't ever mention that file..." - by Kalriath (849904) on Sunday March 06, @02:29AM (#35394950)

Again, "Gee, why not?"... maybe because I will have to mention the 2 URL's above where you started up crap with me on HOSTS files and were blown away by facts in the end there for your trolling?? LMAO!

APK

P.S.=> Additionally/lastly: I already noted it here to others in this article's thread today -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2024512&cid=35395328 [slashdot.org] ... and, as you can see, others here use it as well (the person you replied to seems to infer that imo)... apk

apk's "Bad Memories" of trolling & losing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35396990)

The title tells the truth here.

Kalriath replies as AC? LMAO... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35397264)

Not like the URL does below your AC reply, Kalriath:

"The title tells the truth here." - by Anonymous Coward alias Kalriath on Sunday March 06, @10:09AM (#35396990)

NOW, the title tells the truth, and also/again: Try this instead, because it has backing proofs, unlike yours Kalriath:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2024512&cid=35395682 [slashdot.org]

APK

P.S.=> Even with you posting as AC in reply now... apk

Re:Slashdot bias (1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393082)

If they tick off advertisers, then who are they going to sell your information to?

Re:Slashdot bias (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393150)

If they tick off advertisers, then who are they going to sell your information to?

I imagine advertisers would overlook a ton of BS in order to gain access to (what they'd perceive as) such a treasure trove of personal information. The prize is too tempting to walk away from that easily.

Developers are a different story. If Facebook insists on alienating them, effectively using them as pawns in their pissing contest with Google, they might eventually get tired of that. Most people don't like being jerked around, especially for no good reason. If they finally go elsewhere, Facebook will miss them when they're gone.

Re:Slashdot bias (4, Insightful)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393198)

If they finally go elsewhere, Facebook will miss them when they're gone.

Very true. I believe 100% that the biggest reason that Facebook has grown to the size that it is today is because of the (mostly shitty) applications.

People no longer play Farmville because it's on Facebook-- they go to Facebook TO play Farmville.

It makes me sad to say that.

Re:Slashdot bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35393400)

It makes you sad? It makes me welcome the day that an asteroid or GRB wipes humans off the planet. We dont deserve to survive.

I'm going to make you sadder. (4, Funny)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393566)

http://www.amazon.com/FarmVille-Dummies-Angela-Morales/dp/1118016963 [amazon.com]

That's right, Farmville For Dummies.

You may now cry yourself to sleep.

--
BMO

Re:I'm going to make you sadder. (1)

siloko (1133863) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395014)

from one of the reviewers of that book:

For instance I was getting worried that zombies would take over my farm. I was relieved that this book explained to me that that was a different game altogether and that they are completely separate, and the zombies from the game I had not signed up for wouldn't rise.

Well, you got to admit, they KNOW their audience (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395188)

Anyway, if I suggest Farmville is just SimCity 2010... am I going to be able to make it out of here before the hord descends?

For full disclosure, got neither a facebook account of played or even seen Farmville runnings. IRC and Trade Wars is where it is at. Now get of my lawn.

Re:Slashdot bias (2)

Ryanrule (1657199) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393570)

As intelligence goes up, happiness often goes down. See, I made a graph. I make a lot of graphs...

Re:Slashdot bias (1, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393942)

As intelligence goes up, happiness often goes down. See, I made a graph. I make a lot of graphs...

God damn, as a tendency this one is the straight truth.

Intelligence makes happiness more difficult to achieve. It also makes it more meaningful and more deeply appreciated once attained. It is solid and meaningful then, not fleeting and transient like the happiness (i.e. indulgence) of too many.

Re:Slashdot bias (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393090)

They obviously did something right if there is a facebook icon on every story and /. begs you to be their facebook friend.

Re:Slashdot bias (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393218)

And on about any other website. It makes me wonder why some people don't have everything related to FaceBook adblocked yet.

Of course, AdSense is already blocked by everyone I know, so both culprits of this article would be happily together.

Re:Slashdot bias (1)

MichaelKristopeit331 (1966802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393092)

cower some more, feeb.

slashdot = stagnated

Re:Slashdot bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35393530)

cower some more, feeb.

slashdot = stagnated

I'll drill a glory hole into the wall for you, so you can suck my anonymous cock.

OOohhhhh yeahhhh this is gonna be a real big load, hope you're ready to swallow! Extra protein for your diet, you faggot.

Re:Slashdot bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35393754)

He also give amazing rim jobs.

Re:Slashdot bias (1)

MichaelKristopeit331 (1966802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393888)

ur mum's face faggot.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:Slashdot bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394214)

ur mum's face faggot.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

ur mum's face faggot.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

ur mum's face faggot.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

yes. now if only i could create dozens of Slashdot accounts. then i would be a brave man like yourself. i will call them JohnSmith101 through JohnSmith555. Of course you have no way of knowing if my name really is John Smith but then I can say I am so brave for using my real name. Genius. then and only then would i be just like you. wait why the fuck would i want to do that? no, i am happy being me. it is far better than being a fucking useless cunt like you.

have you ever thought of seeing a therapist?

Re:Slashdot bias (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395210)

It's a chatterbot dude. He has prescripted responses for certain keywords. Also adds something for anonymous posts.

Re:Slashdot bias (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393112)

I love how Facebook can't do anything right as far as Slashdot is concerned. If they block ad networks, their evil...if they don't their also evil. Come on people!

Yes there is a definite pro-Facebook bias around here. Otherwise there'd never be so many Facebook stories.

Bear in mind that the very worst thing you can do to a company like Facebook is to ignore them.

To see their name in news headlines on so many sites tells them that they are important, that people are waiting with bated breath to see what they will do next, that people think it's worth talking about. It's what helps keep their brand in mind and ultimately helps to drive traffic to their site.

Other devs go on to clarify that the reputations of some of the accepted networks is shady at best, leaving developers with sub-par options to monetize their work on the Facebook platform.

If Google is willing to partner with Facebook for advertising and Facebook thinks having a pissing contest is more important, then to any would-be Facebook developers: doesn't that tell you what their priorities are? Their priorities certainly don't include you. If you have skill and talent and a good work ethic, why not go someplace where your efforts are better appreciated?

Re:Slashdot bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35393358)

As a facebook user, I get mad pussy.

As a facebook developer, I get mad money.

Do the math.

Re:Slashdot bias (5, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393406)

As a facebook user, I get mad pussy.

As a facebook developer, I get mad money.

Do the math.

0 + 0 = 0

Re:Slashdot bias (1)

Viperpete (1261530) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394376)

That doesn't even take into account:

mad = insane

I would say:

-1 + -1 = sounds good amongst people you don't really know, sound bad amongst those who are worth knowing

Re:Slashdot bias (1)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395504)

Your math is incorrect, but I will give partial credit because mad money and mad pussy do cancel each other out to equal zero.

Re:Slashdot bias (1)

MichaelKristopeit352 (1968160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393912)

... facebook didn't reject google... google didn't accept the terms offered by facebook. google is the one who is not willing to partner with facebook.

the causality is you're an idiot.

cower behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:Slashdot bias (1)

williamhb (758070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394272)

If Google is willing to partner with Facebook for advertising and Facebook thinks having a pissing contest is more important, then to any would-be Facebook developers: doesn't that tell you what their priorities are? Their priorities certainly don't include you. If you have skill and talent and a good work ethic, why not go someplace where your efforts are better appreciated?

Because like most businesses or entrepreneurs, you'd rather go where the customers are.

Re:Slashdot bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35393234)

I love how Facebook can't do anything right as far as Slashdot is concerned. If they block ad networks, their evil...if they don't their also evil. Come on people!

I love how you mischaracterize the story just so you can go on a rant against "slashdot." They didn't block ads. There are ads all over the fucking place.

And it's "they're," you knucklehead.

Re:Slashdot bias (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35393728)

I love how Facebook can't do anything right as far as Slashdot is concerned. If they block ad networks, their evil...if they don't their also evil. Come on people!

I love how you mischaracterize the story just so you can go on a rant against "slashdot." They didn't block ads. There are ads all over the fucking place.

And it's "they're," you knucklehead.

Yeah, he's a knucklehead who can't correctly do easy things.

People can bitch and moan about "grammar nazis" all they like. What hard experience will tell you, assuming you fucking listen, is that people who can correctly write a sentence in their own native language are one hell of a lot more likely to have an argument worth entertaining than those who fail basic things that 4th graders are expected to know.

If you have a weakness in this area and basic grammar is difficult for you, the remedy is easy to understand. Man up, grow a pair of balls, get some guts, and admit that you have a weakness. Then confront your weakness and work to improve it and turn it into a strength. Don't do it because some grammar nazi might hassle you. Do it because you give a shit about yourself and want to improve.

If you can't handle that, you can always bitch about those terrible grammar nazis. That sure is easier than admitting you don't have what it takes to work on your weaknesses, isn't it?

Re:Slashdot bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35395410)

What?

Re:Slashdot bias (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393600)

hardly, remember how facebook suddenly "realized" that all of the top apps were selling user data that they shouldnt have even access to
they didnt get banned like there TOS says quite clearly, no they got a slap on the wrist

their actions are very childish, and their reasons are very transparent

monetize my asshole you faggots! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35393076)

on second thought, that sounds gay.

Facebook's demands (4, Informative)

Nicopa (87617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393156)

The TOS "advertising providers" have to comply with are very very strict. I doubt Google will agree to things like these:

[...] upon request, the Advertising Provider agrees to provide Facebook the names of and contact information for any employees and/or contractors and to specify those employees and/or contractors involved in designing, targeting, serving advertising related products/services, or otherwise providing any services covered by this Agreement.

And Facebook would be able to "audit" Google for anything covered in the agreement:

Facebook reserves the right to audit the Advertising Provider for compliance with these terms.

And if anything goes wrong, Facebook already had decided the verdict of the trial:

The Advertising Provider agrees that any violation of these terms may result in an immediate ban from the Facebook Platform and all Facebook websites, products and services. The Advertising Provider acknowledges and agrees that a breach or threatened breach by the Advertising Provider of these terms would cause irreparable injury, that money damages would be an inadequate remedy,

Re:Facebook's demands (5, Insightful)

Maestro4k (707634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393222)

The TOS "advertising providers" have to comply with are very very strict. I doubt Google will agree to things like these:

[...] upon request, the Advertising Provider agrees to provide Facebook the names of and contact information for any employees and/or contractors and to specify those employees and/or contractors involved in designing, targeting, serving advertising related products/services, or otherwise providing any services covered by this Agreement.

That's rather draconian, I'm not sure why any ad company would agree to those terms. It's a bit unreasonable for Facebook to demand the names and contact info of everyone involved in "designing, targeting, serving advertising related products/services". Does this mean that the companies who have agreed will have to fork over the contact info for every ad buyer that provides pre-designed ads? (In other words, nearly all ad buyers.) Sure sounds like it.

Frankly this sounds like an attempt by Facebook to get the names of employees to headhunt for an eventual Facebook-owned Ad network, as well as making sure they have plenty of contacts at the companies who buy ads as well. This is seriously abusive, even by Facebook's normal behavior. I suspect any ad companies who have agreed to this already are going to seriously regret it in the future.

Now as to me personally, I don't give a damn what they do here, I'm going to continue to adblock on Facebook because all the ads Facebook themselves run are obnoxious and annoying.

Re:Facebook's demands (1)

HLJ76 (2007462) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393442)

That's rather draconian, I'm not sure why any ad company would agree to those terms. It's a bit unreasonable for Facebook to demand the names and contact info of everyone involved in "designing, targeting, serving advertising related products/services". Does this mean that the companies who have agreed will have to fork over the contact info for every ad buyer that provides pre-designed ads? (In other words, nearly all ad buyers.) Sure sounds like it.

I can think of one reason to agree with the terms: the ad company in question may be about to die due to Google competition and they know if they agree they not only get a chance to survive but also give Facebook the incentive they need to proceed with this and block any large and healthy ad company from the service.

Frankly this sounds like an attempt by Facebook to get the names of employees to headhunt for an eventual Facebook-owned Ad network, as well as making sure they have plenty of contacts at the companies who buy ads as well. This is seriously abusive, even by Facebook's normal behavior.

That is very likely, but I don't think this is beyond Facebook's standards. It does not surprises me at all. Another possibility is they are not doing it to seed competition, but instead as a slap to Google. It's no secret the two companies have more friction than a conservative republican and a liberal democrat in the middle of a bush tax extension discussion. Facebook may be staging this entire deal only so they can claim their actions are not directed at just Google and are just policies that are equally applied to all.

Re:Facebook's demands (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394686)

I can think of one reason to agree with the terms: the ad company in question may be about to die due to Google competition and they know if they agree they not only get a chance to survive but also give Facebook the incentive they need to proceed with this and block any large and healthy ad company from the service.

To me, though, that translates:

"My boyfriend isn't paying any attention to me lately. Maybe I can get Zuck to rape me."

Re:Facebook's demands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35395324)

"My boyfriend isn't paying any attention to me lately. Maybe I can get Zuck to rape me."

I read recently that rape fantasies are fairly common among women. Maybe those ad companies are run by female CEOs?

Re:Facebook's demands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35395686)

There's a better reason to agree to the terms: you intend to ignore them. If Facebook start making these absurd demands, the penalty is being kicked off the platform and you're no worse off than you were if you hadn't accepted them.

Re:Facebook's demands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35393682)

It's a bit unreasonable for Facebook to demand the names and contact info of everyone involved in "designing, targeting, serving advertising related products/services".

They demand it for anyone else who goes to their site, so why not here too. I mean they like having two e-mails and your mobile phone number "to protect your privacy."

Re:Facebook's demands (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394922)

In a normal country, this would be illegal, as it clearly harms the privacy of people.

Re:Facebook's demands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394840)

... The Advertising Provider acknowledges and agrees that a breach or threatened breach by the Advertising Provider of these terms would cause irreparable injury, that money damages would be an inadequate remedy,

and so this is how facebook plans to make money
take a slice of all advertising going through the site
once some providers underperform, find them in 'breach'
sue said provider for causing 'irreparable injury' to facebook
profit!

It makes sense (1)

haus (129916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393168)

Shady ad companies for products on a shady portal.

Re:It makes sense (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393300)

I ask this entirely out of ignorance.

I'm in canada, so lots of websites that do location detection show me pretty crappy, off topic or downright strange adds (usually in lieu of music or TV adds that would be only available in the canada on different networks than the US0. These I think are actually shady, but I don't click on them to know. Facebook seems to have a lot of 'stop smoking' 'get laid', random nonsense job postings that sort thing. Even if it isn't, it seems pretty sketchy. Is it the same if you're a US customer?

I mean, the perception I have here, is that, exactly as you say, shady products from a shady website. It's no less a shady website if you access it from the US, but are the adds more suited to what is (for better or worse) one of the biggest websites around? You'd sort of expect to see car ads, coke, McDonald's that sort of thing, even one of the bigger dating sites (that you know.. advertises on TV). But on facebook.. it's all erm... stuff absolutely no sane person would buy. Looking at it right now there's an ad for 'consulting on HP-Microsoft products".. not an HP ad, not a Microsoft ad.. an ad for some other outfit that will consult on HP-Microsoft products (with some buzzwords about laptops networking and WiFi).

Re:It makes sense (1)

zegota (1105649) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393516)

Ads on the actual Facebook site are an entirely different matter from what shows up on apps. Ads on apps are done completely outside of Facebook's sphere of influence (other than the fact that they'll apparently ban you if you're using someone they don't like). Ads on the actual site are often done by random users. If you want, you can take out space advertising your resume. I see someone doing that every few months.

Re:It makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35395246)

I get the same kind of ads here in the US. I'd say about 50% of the ads I see on Facebook are for "social" games (Farmville, Mob Wars, RTS clones), another 40% are for extremely shady, random crap like "Train to be an FBI agent in 8 Months, earn $80,000 a year! " or "Local mom learns secret to earning $6,000 a week from home!!!!~~!~1 Only works 3 days a week@@!!!", and the last 10% or so are legitimate ads for local businesses and services that are location-based.

Facebook is pretty much an abusive platform (5, Informative)

weston (16146) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393320)

A couple of months back I spent a few weeks looking at developing a Facebook App. By the time I was done coding a simple one, I'd basically come to the conclusion that there were a lot better things to do with my time. Here's why:

* The APIs and SDKs. There's a lot of them. And not in the lots-to-love sense. In the dissociative identity disorder sense. Some of them work as specified. Some of them don't.

* The documentation. It sucks. It sucks extra because of the changes to the APIs -- a lot of times, you don't know if any given howto, forum post, internet article, and (in some cases) actual official documentation refers to the version of the API or SDK you're using. It sucks *particularly* hard because some complete moron at Facebook made the decision to blow away a community-built wiki site and replace it with a Bing search of the half-hearted official docs. And a lot of the links still out there still point to it.

* The policy/UI changes. Profile boxes (rather successful interaction hooks) were phased out in favor of tabs, which were going to be The New And Better Way. Now tabs are going away -- why? Oh, because it turned out that people didn't actually use them and Facebook now has another idea of what to do.

And this is from a company that's certainly sitting on the actual resources to do a hell of a lot better than this.

Watching all this, I developed two theories about Facebook:

1) It's possible that its success is more or less an accident of history -- they put something good enough together at the right time to become the premiere social network, and because of the network effect, it's sticky enough people don't simply defect despite its problems. But as an organization, they're not genuinely smart enough to do much further effectively... including providing a good platform for third-party devs.

2) Facebook doesn't really actually care about providing an effective and reliable platform for developers. They don't have to. There's enough incentive for would-be devs to try something and see if it works out that they can let the mass of attempts hit the wall and fail, and still reap benefits from those who break through and make things work. In the meanwhile, they can pretty much shift agendas as they see fit, and if that breaks a number of developer eggs, oh well. More will come.

I'm not sure which one is more true. My money is on #2, really, but there's possibly some measure of #1 as well. Either way, though, the upshot is that it's more or less an abusive platform, and the announcement that they're forbidding AdSense doesn't surprise me in the least -- it's totally consistent with both theories.

If you've got an idea that needs to feed from the fabric of the social web in order to succeed, then it's still the place to go. But if you've got another idea that doesn't, it might be better to go with that than to work with these guys.

Re:Facebook is pretty much an abusive platform (-1)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393382)

There's already a facebook app for all major platforms. There's no need for another one. Write something else. Write a game that doesn't suck for Android; for iPhone a way of searching a web page or pdf document for a given word.

Re:Facebook is pretty much an abusive platform (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393478)

Pretty sure GP is talking about an app for embedding in FB, like Farmville or wtv.

behind the times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35393630)

iOS has had a way of searching for text in a web page (or pdf) since 4.0. And most of the cool games (plants vs. zombies, etc.) are available for Android.

Re:Facebook is pretty much an abusive platform (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394074)

Swing and a miss...

Re:Facebook is pretty much an abusive platform (1, Informative)

williamhb (758070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394348)

1) It's possible that its success is more or less an accident of history -- they put something good enough together at the right time to become the premiere social network, and because of the network effect, it's sticky enough people don't simply defect despite its problems.

You think that's an "accident"?? Almost certainly, that was the business plan! People were starting to turn on to the idea of social networks, and by targeting exclusively universities first, they would hit an early-adopter demographic just at the time they were forming many new social connections (freshers) that they wouldn't want to lose by moving to a different network later, and the network effect would make it grow. That ain't no accident!

Either way, though, the upshot is that it's more or less an abusive platform

Newsflash -- they're all abusive platforms. That's what tech giants do. We all know about trying to break away from the MS monopoly, and the tight hold they've tried to have on the world's doc formats. Good luck trying to stop Google having your data -- even if you eschew their services they'll still track you thanks to Google Analytics on most major sites. (And they really do see it as their data -- if you agree to send your search queries and your URL clicks to Bing, Google will make a merry dance about how that means Bing is copying their data. In other words Google does not believe that you have the right to send your behaviour data to anyone but them.) Facebook wants to own your social interactions, and make as much as possible of your online world depend on your social network ("look, your applications are now part of our network"). And, as has been true since long before Microsoft beat up Netscape, every large technology company wants to break every other large technology company for fear that even if they're not really competitors now they might be soon. Facebook might do search, so Google better kill 'em now if they can...

And it's not conspiracy -- it's explicit. The VCs that fund them in the start always ask the question "How are you going to protect your market?" -- or in other words "How can we achieve lock-in?"

Re:Facebook is pretty much an abusive platform (2)

ewe2 (47163) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394438)

Yep, its all in the textbook.

The good thing about this is that companies with this mindset from the beginning need a rock solid market opportunity to get too big to ignore. Yes, Facebook is in a good position now, but its really only at the whim of favoritism. Missteps expose their complete sociopathy, and I don't think Facebook is so central to the industry that anyone cares if they fall.

Re:Facebook is pretty much an abusive platform (1)

rnswebx (473058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395220)

and I don't think Facebook is so central to the industry that anyone cares if they fall.

That's laughable.

Facebook is social gaming right now. There is at least one multi-billion dollar company created just from Facebook games (Zynga) who reaches something like 50 million social gamers per day. There are other multi-billion dollar companies who've recently entered the social gaming industry (Electronic Arts [EA], and Disney come to mind) and are trying to get a share of this enormous market.

As much as we (slashdot crowd) probably don't like Facebook, the fact remains that it is quite central to most anything relating to 'social' on the internet. Seriously, what else is there that has anything to do with what Facebook's doing that people are using in mass? I outlined a little bit about the insanely profitable social gaming arena that has used Facebook's massive user base to spread like wildfire. Where else can people play these sorts of games with all of their friends? People really enjoy the social aspect of Facebook. In fact, according to a study of ~7,800 Thai students, their primary reason to use Facebook was to relieve stress. (source [socialtimes.com])

To be honest, I'm not sure why I took the time to respond to this. I think the tech geek type tend to dismiss Facebook because it's not something that we're really into. The facts, however, show that Facebook is quite central to tens (perhaps hundreds) of millions of people's "internet lives", for lack of a better term. Think about this: Facebook has over 9 times the page views of youtube.com, the second most popular website in the world. (source [google.com])

Re:Facebook is pretty much an abusive platform (1)

weston (16146) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394632)

they would hit an early-adopter demographic just at the time they were forming many new social connections (freshers) that they wouldn't want to lose by moving to a different network later, and the network effect would make it grow. That ain't no accident!

Theory #1 is compatible with the idea that while what you're saying is true, neither Zuck nor anybody else involved had an explicit understanding of this while they were building it.

Newsflash -- they're all abusive platforms. That's what tech giants do.... And it's not conspiracy -- it's explicit. The VCs that fund them in the start always ask the question "How are you going to protect your market?" -- or in other words "How can we achieve lock-in?"

The problem with this response is that most of the deficiencies I'm describing don't help them do any of this. Apple's abuses related to iOS and its developers are ridiculous on any number of levels but all more or less make some kind sense from a standpoint of QC, promoting future purchases, and lock-in. And, OK, banning AdSense fits in with the goals your describing.

But seriously, what good does it do Facebook if their APIs and SDKs suck? If their documentation is terrible? If they deprecate useful interaction hooks in favor of less useful ones which end up banished entirely? There's really only one advantage -- they push the development costs of polishing these things off their own plate and onto the backs of their third party devs. And they can get away with it because of their position in the market... but that's the kind of advantage that really should only appeal to a shoestring operation with limited resources, not a rapidly growing company with ambitions of having deep ties to many of the future services deployed on the web. It isn't going to help them capture anything.

Re:Facebook is pretty much an abusive platform (1)

thsths (31372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395238)

> 2) Facebook doesn't really actually care about providing an effective and reliable platform for developers.

That would explain my observation - which is that all facebook apps suck. Some may be marginally useful, but require way too much data access. Others are just plain silly or annoying.

I think once we have a half decent local app platform, maybe with a social or cloud interface, facebook apps are going to be history.

aoeU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35393476)

IN SovIEt AdBOok FACeSENse bAns YOU!

Facebook Apps and privacy (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393518)

I don't use any Facebook apps at all. Ever.

Why?

Because every "click to confirm" dialog contains requests for information tantamount to anally raping my account with no lube and no reach-around.

Maybe, just maybe, if I had more control over the granularity of such requests, I *might* just consider using a Facebook game or something. But the way things are right now, nope, not gonna happen.

And if you're a Facebook app developer that is intent on anally raping Facebook user accounts, die in a fire.

--
BMO

Re:Facebook Apps and privacy (1)

zegota (1105649) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393552)

Nah, it's because the way Facebook sets up it's privacy. You can't really have the user do *anything* social unless you rape their privacy. Want to allow your player to transfer his name and profile picture over to the game? You have to access his pictures and his profile information. Want to allow him to invite his friends? You have to access his friends list. And there's not really a reason to put the game on Facebook if you're not utilizing the social aspects. It'd be wonderful if there were some sort of option whereby an app could allow you to see a list of your friends, invite them, etc, without the actual app being able to see that information, but Facebook doesn't really provide that level of detail. To be fair, there's probably not a lot of demand; the crossover between people who have a huge desire to play Farmville and the people who are strongly concerned about their privacy is not likely to be large.

Re:Facebook Apps and privacy (1)

517714 (762276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393646)

I agree that access to the whole of your information is a poor design decision, but aren't privacy and social networking mutually incompatible in the first place? Since they call it a social network why would anyone expect more than a modicum of privacy?

Re:Facebook Apps and privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35393798)

What is meant is that Facebook would provide a standardized interface for apps to use the information. To invite friends, the app would call something like:

FB::InviteUserFriends("This is the cool automatically made message to get people interested in this game, because this friend is playing it.", APP.globalLink);

Such a function call would open up an interface run only by Facebook itself.

Re:Facebook Apps and privacy (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393800)

"Social Networking" certainly, by design, involves some disclosure of certain information to certain people. That's the whole point. However, there are more and less privacy-hostile mechanisms for achieving the ends that users typically want.

When it comes to Facebook's arrangement of privacy-related options, settings, and design, they are either actively malicious or so incompetent that their handling is indistinguishable from malice.

Re:Facebook Apps and privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35396928)

Please tell me why Facebook apps need my name and address? They were working fine without them!

Re:Facebook Apps and privacy (1)

Mandrel (765308) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393874)

It'd be wonderful if there were some sort of option whereby an app could allow you to see a list of your friends, invite them, etc, without the actual app being able to see that information, but Facebook doesn't really provide that level of detail.

An app can display a Request Dialog [facebook.com] that prompts the user to invite selected friends to use the app. But because the app gets a callback about who was invited, it's possible that apps can't do this without being given access to the user's public or private friend list. As you say, this should be possible even if an app hasn't requested access to anything. The docs don't make it clear what permissions are required.

Re:Facebook Apps and privacy (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395590)

I'm writing an app where the user can upload images to his/her facebook account. For this, I need the additional "post to wall"-permission. That's fine and understandable, but even the basic permissions every app has to get are already in the "rape their privacy" range. I don't need even need to know the user's name or anything from the friends list. However, there's nothing I can do about that, the permission is still given.

The exact wording is:

Access my basic information
Includes name, profile picture, gender, networks, user ID, list of friends, and any other information I've shared with everyone.

Re:Facebook Apps and privacy (1)

dr_blurb (676176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395846)

What if you're an app developer and only want a little information to save the user a login?
Impossible! All my app (Calcudoku [facebook.com]) needs is:
(1) user id, and (2) first name,
but I'm forced to ask the user for "basic information", which is: name, picture, gender, networks, user id, list of friends, likes, music, about me, location, education history, and work history (what the ??!!)

I'm also getting fed up with the changing APIs, lack of documentation, intermittent errors, and yes, I am using AdSense on the page, thank you Facebook :-(

Good, now facebook should ban all ads (1, Insightful)

Cito (1725214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35393698)

Nobody likes ads anyhow, I cut cable tv 9 years ago and have pirated ever since due to spam and the massive amounts of ads that pop culture has turned into. I use adblock, peerguardian, updated blocklists and null routes in my router to avoid spam at all costs... several years ago people were as massively anti ads as I am now, but somehow the new 'politically correct' thing to do is to embrace ads for some odd reason and people actually defend ads nowdays... Sad really. There are many alternate ways for developers to monetize their applications... I ran a forum in the 90's on "donation ware" with ability to pay monthly for additional privileges like uploading files / etc, and it was plenty to pay for itself plus extra in pocket to help pay the bills. People need to quit settling for ads and actively block all ads and protest media that spam by using alternate means to aquire said media without ads :) 9+ years and counting and in those 9 years I have never installed antivirus software (never a virus/malware/spyware thanks to massive firewall/peerguardian/adblock and similar in past ), or had to bother with pesky 40 minutes of commercials to watch a 20 minute show. :) yet people like me have become the "bad guy" when just 5 years ago those that employed spam, ads, commercial networks were the "bad guy"

Re:Good, now facebook should ban all ads (2)

Skreems (598317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395144)

If you're replacing cable tv ONLY with piracy and not even occasionally buying a dvd or two, you kind of are a bad guy. If the only way to get content was ad-supported I might be with you, but there are plenty of legitimate ways to support the content you enjoy without dealing with ads.

Re:Good, now facebook should ban all ads (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395290)

If you're getting something for free in exchange for viewing ads, how is that a bad thing? Unintrusive ads are no problem, IMO...

However, I end up blocking most ads too, because they are all far too detrimental to the experience:

-Flash banners slow down my older PC hardware to a crawl, whereas the experience is more than fast enough when the banners are blocked
-TV ads are, well, also entirely intrusive... to the point that I don't watch TV unless it's torrented

If my browser only displayed ads that were static and didn't obscure content, I'd have absolutely no problem turning off adblock. Hell, browsing on my Android Phone is an excruciating experience compared to Firefox with AdBlockPlus... pop-overs alone are worth ABP.

Consider HOSTS files too... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35395328)

"I use adblock, peerguardian, updated blocklists and null routes in my router to avoid spam at all costs... several years ago people were as massively anti ads as I am now, but somehow the new 'politically correct' thing to do is to embrace ads for some odd reason and people actually defend ads nowdays" - by Cito (1725214) on Saturday March 05, @09:17PM (#35393698) Homepage

The ONLY people that "defend ads" are the multiple account using fools that create or profit by the ads... proof? Ok, from a respected someone in the Open SORES world:

----

"It just takes one Ubuntu sympathizer or PR flack to minus-moderate any comment. Unfortunately, once PR agencies and so on started paying people to moderate online communities, and to have hundreds of accounts each, things changed." - by Bruce Perens (3872) on Friday July 30, @03:55PM (#33089192) Homepage Journal

SOURCE -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1738364&cid=33089192 [slashdot.org]

----

Back to my subject-line though now:

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html [networkworld.com] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org]
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html [hostsfile.org]
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/ [hostsfile.mine.nu]
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download [hosts-file.net]
https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online [abuse.ch]
https://spyeyetracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php [abuse.ch]
http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml [malware.com.br]
http://www.stopbadware.org/ [stopbadware.org]
Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!

(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).

2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1898692&cid=34473398 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1896216&cid=34458500 [slashdot.org]

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can.

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code. With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:

ADBANNERS SLOW DOWN THE WEB: -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/30/166218 [slashdot.org]

and people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:

PEOPLE DISLIKE ADBANNERS: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]

15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:

---

Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/doubleclick_msn_malware_attacks/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/02/02/1433210/Attacks-Targeting-Classified-Ad-Sites-Surge [slashdot.org]

---

Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/01/20/0228258/Hackers-Respond-To-Help-Wanted-Ads-With-Malware [slashdot.org]

---

Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick [wired.com]

---

Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/microsoft_ips_hijacked/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/13/0128249/Two-Major-Ad-Networks-Found-Serving-Malware [slashdot.org]

---

ADBANNERS SLOW DOWN THE WEB:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/30/166218 [slashdot.org]

---

THE NEXT AD YOU CLICK MAY BE A VIRUS:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus [slashdot.org]

---

NY TIMES INFECTED WITH MALWARE ADBANNER:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/13/2346229 [slashdot.org]

---

MICROSOFT HIT BY MALWARES IN ADBANNERS:

http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com]

---

ISP's INJECTING ADS AND ERRORS INTO THE WEB: -> http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

ADOBE FLASH ADS INJECTING MALWARE INTO THE NET: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&from=rss [slashdot.org]

---

London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware:

http://www.securityweek.com/london-stock-exchange-web-site-serving-malware [securityweek.com]

---

As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1-2 browser family, but not all (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc.).

19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):

---

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT (from -> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/16/wikileaks_mirror_malware_warning_row/ [theregister.co.uk] )

"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like stopbadware.org (which protects the Firefox browser)...

---

20.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:

BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

---

SECUNIA HIT BY DNS REDIRECTION HACK THIS WEEK:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/26/secunia_back_from_dns_hack/ [theregister.co.uk]

(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)

---

DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that):

http://www.scmagazineus.com/new-bind-9-dns-flaw-is-worse-than-kaminskys/article/140872/ [scmagazineus.com]

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)

---

Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the 1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even GOOGLE DNS, & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)

---

DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/16/ddos_on_dns_firm/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!)

http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/08/04/1525235.shtml?tid=172&tid=95&tid=218 [slashdot.org]

---

DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/03/16/1658209.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

DNS ROOT SERVERS ATTACKED:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/02/06/2238225.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

TimeWarner DNS Hijacking:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/2140208 [slashdot.org]

---

DNS Re-Binding Attacks:

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]

---

DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/11/21/0315239.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Photobucket's DNS records hijacked by Turkish hacking group:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/title/1285 [zdnet.com]

---

Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/has-halvar-figured-out-super-secret-dns-vulnerability/1520 [zdnet.com]

---

BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning:

http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/08/09/123222.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/08/21/2343250.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECUNIA.COM to "top that all off" as well:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):

---

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

---

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm [furtherleft.net] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html [ntcompatible.com] !

---

"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/1840246/Beating-Censorship-By-Routing-Around-DNS [slashdot.org] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL [wikipedia.org] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!

APK

P.S.=> SOME MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all:

A.) HOSTS files don't function under PROXY SERVERS (except for Proximitron, which has a filter that allows it) - Which is *the "WHY"* of why I state in my "P.S." section below to use both AdBlock type browser addon methods (or even built-in block lists browsers have such as Opera's URLFILTER.INI file, & FireFox has such as list as does IE also) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files do NOT protect you vs. javascript (this only holds true IF you don't already have a bad site blocked out in your HOSTS file though, & the list of sites where you can obtain such lists to add to your HOSTS are above (& updated daily in many of them)).

C.) HOSTS files (relatively "largish ones") require you to turn off Windows' native "DNS local client cache service" (which has a problem in that it's designed with a non-redimensionable/resizeable list, array, or queue (DNS data loads into a C/C++ structure actually/afaik, which IS a form of array)) - mvps.org covers that in detail and how to easily do this in Windows (this is NOT a problem in Linux, & it's 1 thing I will give Linux over Windows, hands-down). Relatively "smallish" HOSTS files don't have this problem (mvps.org offers 2 types for this).

D.) HOSTS files, once read/loaded, once GET CACHED, for speed of access/re-access (@ system startup in older MS OS' like 2000, or, upon a users' 1st request that's "Webbound" via say, a webbrowser) gets read into either the DNS local caching client service (noted above), OR, if that's turned off? Into your local diskcache (like ANY file is), so it reads F A S T upon re-reads/subsequent reads (until it's changed in %WinDir%\system32\drivers\etc on Windows, which marks it "Dirty" & then it gets re-read + reloaded into the local diskcache again). This may cause a SMALL lag upon reload though, depending on the size of your HOSTS file.

E.) HOSTS files don't protect vs. BGP exploits - Sorry, once it's out of your hands/machine + past any interior network + routers you have, the packets you send are out there into the ISP/BSP's hands - they're "the Agents" holding all the keys to the doorways at that point (hosts are just a forcefield-filter (for lack of a better description) armor on what can come in mostly, & a bit of what can go out too (per point 18 above on "locking in malware")). Hosts work as a "I can't get burned if I can't go into the kitchen" protection, for you: Not your ISP/BSP. It doesn't extend to them... apk

enough with facebook (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35393786)

Its boring, irrelevant and any of you twits actually fueling facebook with your private content are just tools. Lets see, at 3 cents an email address, how many have you all just given to facebook? Facebook is roughly equivalent to masturbation in public.

Facebook is fun.. Google is practical. (1)

TheCeltic (102319) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394220)

Hopefully practical is more important and better marketing to sales people.

is this true? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394458)

is this true?

The lesser of 2 evils... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394904)

It's hard to take a side on this issue. If you have any personal experience with Google Adsense (like me) and it's draconian service agreement (one that rivals Micorsoft's EULA), I can see why Facebook might have excluded it, but don't agree with Facebook dictating terms on it's developers. Unfortunately, Google and Facebook are just big business. Both Google's and Facebook's primary motivations are profit. Nothing more, nothing less. If you "believe" companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft or Apple are out for your best interest, then your seriously deluded. Choosing between Google or Facebook in this situation is like choosing between getting stabbed or getting shot. Either way, you lose.

Google's move (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#35397516)

Some of those "shady ad networks" gets blocked by chrome and probably some security plugins/extensions for other browsers because they are used to serve malware, so i bet facebook or fb app devels will cry foul when google blocks them because of those ads, not for being facebook.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...