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 Plans To Show Ads On Websites

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the now-it-gets-interesting dept.

Facebook 78

An anonymous reader writes "Facebook is planning to compete directly with Google by working on an update for its ad platform. Facebook will be offering webmasters to place facebook ads on their websites."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good (3, Insightful)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782788)

Maybe it will die as a product and I can go back to using something better for organising events with people. One large message box sure is fun.

Re:Good (4, Interesting)

gnick (1211984) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782888)

I think that's a normal life-cycle.

Have a good idea, promote it, get popular, get ingrained with your users, cash in, cash out, die. Seems to work.

Re:Good (3, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783600)

I think that's a normal life-cycle.

Have a good idea, promote it, get popular, get ingrained with your users, cash in, cash out, die. Seems to work.

Can't see why not. That's Myspace for you.

Re:Good (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786730)

Forgot the last step "sell off company to NewsCorp".

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35788700)

Isn't that the cash out, die steps?

Re:Good (2)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783722)

Well, it sure worked great for AOL and MySpace.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35789754)

I think that's a normal life-cycle.

Have a good idea, promote it, get popular, get ingrained with your users, cash in, cash out, die. Seems to work.

Facebook is already on the down. Who cares about that stupid social network anyway. It will go the way of MySpace and zuckerberg will eventually have to do a pr0n film with a huge cock in his ass to pay the bills.

Re:Good (1)

dogzdik (1700552) | more than 3 years ago | (#35790190)

Zuckerberg has many cocks in many arses.

Re:Good (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782910)

Though arguably evil, Facebook is by no means a necessary evil. You are free to organize as you wish.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35782952)

You know a necessary evil? Idiots - and idiots only use Facebook. For those of us who desire organizing groups of people online - Facebook is pretty much the only option.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35783000)

Ironically, if you think that Facebook's primary purpose is organizing groups of people online, you are also an idiot.

Re:Good (2)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783012)

^ Yeap. I am free to organize as i wish, but I wouldn't be able to talk to the people I need to. Face book is great for one to many; but it is awful for many to many and oh I just need to subdivide that bit of many into two bits. etc. ect... tce...

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783130)

For those of us who desire organizing groups of people online - Facebook is pretty much the only option.

I wonder how they did it before Facebook?

Re:Good (2)

bdcrazy (817679) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783622)

I had a similar thing to the calls about not having activated onstar in my car i bought used. But what if you are in an accident and can't call for help? I either get outside help or i die. The person on the other end of the phone let out a gasp. Somehow unable to comprehend not spending money to get onstar setup/monthly fees. I also had a revelation that just because i have a phone with me all the time doesn't mean you can get a hold of me at any second either. Kinda strange stuff these days apparently.

Re:Good (2)

Sparhawk2k (680674) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783656)

I wonder how they did it before Facebook?

That's missing the point. What they're saying is that people they're trying to invite now only use Facebook. And don't necessarily respond to other options. I'm sure you could call every single person (if you even have their number since some people don't bother sharing that as much these days) but even then the people aren't getting Facebook reminders so they might not remember it.

Re:Good (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784166)

They didn't. It was total anarchy and chaos, and two world wars. Facebook moved the doomsday clock back a whole hour..

Re:Good (1)

Wiarumas (919682) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783058)

I think Facebook is much more than a website for organizing events with people. I'd like to see the stats, but I'd assume a minority of users actually use that functionality consistenty. The appeal of facebook is that it is a collective hub of the social statuses of all your friends, acquaintences, enemies, rivals, etc and a soapbox for an individual to stand up on every once and a while. Want to know what your old friend from High School is up to - oh he has kids now. Remember that hot cheerleader from college - oh got ugly and is unemployed. Remember that girl that broke your heart? She is single and depressed while you are happily married. Yes, it is that shallow of a service, but at the truth of it, so is mankind and society and I don't see Facebook going anywhere anytime soon.

Re:Good (1)

Toam (1134401) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788188)

I disagree that people don't use the event planning function.

It is an unfortunate truth that in this day and age, many events "exist" entirely on facebook. If you didn't get the facebook invite, you may never even know that the event took place until the photos are uploaded on facebook the next morning...

Re:Good (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35790904)

I don't see it going anywhere. Maybe that's my point if they added some much better features for running and organising things then I wouldn't need to step out side of it to organise the event I've just posted there.

Re:Good (2)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783124)

Maybe it will die as a product and I can go back to using something better for organising events with people. One large message box sure is fun.

Why would it die? To the contrary, even if I dislike ads as anyone else, I have to admit that a hundred million-large social networking backing an ad platform seems like a powerful weapon against AdWords. And if successful, it'll do the opposite of killing it, with even more company acquisitions, etc.

Aha! (0)

Grindalf (1089511) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782794)

A Game's a foot eh? Next time you do a google search for "FaceBook" you'll get the FBI 10 most wanted instead ... :0).....Later .......

Here it comes (3, Insightful)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782798)

The complete monetization of your information. Utilizing cookies and IP addresses obtained via the millions of facebook "like" buttons, cross-referenced with your own postings and the postings of your friends and family; Facebook will deliver advertisements using anyone's likeness on every webpage who subscribes to their service.

Re:Here it comes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35782896)

First they asked for a 'Page', I said hey why not Then they got me a 'Like' After that they took control of my 'Comments' And now FB 'Ads' are in sight My users live on the book My content spread across CDN My site value has plummetted Come Google rescue me

Re:Here it comes (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783226)

Yeah, its about time Google had some competition in that area. :-p

Re:Here it comes (1)

nofx_3 (40519) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783368)

Google is a lot more clear about what they are doing, you know they are an ad platform and you knew they were BEFORE you gave them any info. Some people trusted Facebook more specifically because they weren't doing this. Now Facebook is basically taking a back door, it'll probably be opt out so millions won't even know they data they post on Facebook is being used to target ads OUTSIDE of Facebook. Facebook is desperate, they have no real ability to make money other than to sell your personal info and they know it. It's why they tried to set up their own stock exchange so they didn't have to go public and reveal all the underhanded things they intend to do with your data. They are the next MySpace.

Re:Here it comes (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783616)

Some people trusted Facebook more specifically because they weren't doing this.

Uh, what? Even my mother - who barely qualifies as computer literate - knows that Facebook is a platform for harvesting personal information and selling it to the highest bidder and expresses surprise that anyone is stupid enough have an account. And, no, I didn't tell her this, she learned it from newspaper, radio and TV news. Oh, and from remembering TANSTAAFL. Anyone who joined Facebook without being aware of this was practicing wilful self deception.

Re:Here it comes (1)

nofx_3 (40519) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783932)

My point was that Facebook used to sell that info to be used in targeted ads on Facebook's site, not for anywhere on the web you might visit. I also disagree with you that people know what Facebook is doing with your data, I'd actually argue that the vast majority don't know. Folks who I've had conversations with about what Facebook uses your data for were usually surprised. Your mom is the exception rather than the rule, most people in the US at least don't read a newspaper and don't hear/see radio and TV news, they are too busy with American Idol and Extreme Couponing.

Ok so rumor. Details are where? (5, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782804)

From the blog post:

There is another twist to this story. Facebook is guarding this news and it is not letting anyone leak it out until they announce it in near future. According to my source, Facebook might launch a broader Facebook Ads platform later this year.

Basically there is nothing to see here so you can move on now. But! If you want to join the rumor mill here we go:

1. Are the payouts going to be competitive with AdSense's? I make more than enough yearly via AdSense to get taxed on the income. Will it be worth it for me to add Facebook too?

2. Will Facebook (or conversely Google) allow me to run both AdSense and FBAds concurrently or will I have to pick one or the other (see #1).

3. Are general users visiting my website more likely to click FBAds than AdSense? Will they be textual and thus fit into my content better or will we be looking at a lot of images/Flash?

So many questions and no answers in the linked content. Boo.

Re:Ok so rumor. Details are where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35782882)

nothing to see here


> nslookup

** server can't find NXDOMAIN

Thank you, Unbound.

Re:Ok so rumor. Details are where? (1)

mackil (668039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783004)

From the blog post:

2. Will Facebook (or conversely Google) allow me to run both AdSense and FBAds concurrently or will I have to pick one or the other (see #1).

Precisely the problem I had when implementing Yahoo's contextual ads back in 2005. Google did now allow them to be shown on the same page, so I ended up doing an A/B test for half the site to see how they would compare.

Yahoo repeatedly failed to provide ads that were actually relevant to my site, which resulted in low low clicks, and in turn, very low return. I quickly returned to Adsense.

Re:Ok so rumor. Details are where? (1)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783136)

Are general users visiting my website more likely to click FBAds than AdSense? Will they be textual and thus fit into my content better or will we be looking at a lot of images/Flash?

This is just speculation, but Facebook's ads would most likely be base the off the user's profile information.

Facebook has a competitive advantage over Google when it comes to targeting advertising based on the demographic of the users. Google's algorithm's give it a competitive advantage when it comes to targeting ads based on the content of websites.

Which method works best for generating the most revenue is still up to debate.

Re:Ok so rumor. Details are where? (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784158)

I suspect both methods will work well depending on the situation. On very subject specific sites Google's methods will probably work best. IE Adsens adds on the AROC home page will probably generate more clicks offering links to after market Italian car parts than Facebook ads pushing sexy singles in my neighborhood, will. Facebook will likely find more success on more general news/entertainment sites people just sort of browse not looking for anything specific like this one.

Re:Ok so rumor. Details are where? (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784444)

One of the big questions:

Will FB actively monitor ads going through their ad network so holes in Flash and other add-ons are not exploited by malware writers? I doubt it. It would be nice if they went the AdSense route because it is almost impossible for a malware writer to propagate malicious code via Google's mechanisms.

Ads are the #1 route that PCs get infected these days in my personal experience. It would be nice if FB would act in the interest in the whole PC ecosystem and at least check ads for bad content about to go on their rotation services, as opposed to letting blackhats have a field day with another service.

Re:Ok so rumor. Details are where? (1)

rahails (1727332) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784662)

Hello Bill, The questions you asked are genuine but how can anyone possibly answers these until Facebook launches its ad platform. You are asking it a bit early. It's Facebook who is going to decide if they allow AdSense to run alongside Facebook ads for websites and what'd be the payouts. So think about it for a minute. There is no way I can tell this right now until we hear either from Facebook or from incometricks sources.

Let me guess... (2)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782824)

Their slogan will be "Do be evil."

Re:Let me guess... (1)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783022)

doobie evil? I though Zuckerberg was a friend of the peace pipe [] ...

Just another step (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35782866)

Just another step in the process of the internet slowly becoming facebook. First there was "like" everywhere, now facebook ads. Oh joy.

Oh, Great (1)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782880)

If this gets some decent traction, Facebook will NEVER go away...

Re:If this gets some decent traction (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783374)


"Don't you know who I am? I'm the Zuckernaut, bitch!"

Re:If this gets some decent traction (1)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783464)

Oh, somebody please mod this up.

Competition is good but... (4, Insightful)

mackil (668039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782884)

... will it work? Yahoo! tried this back in 2005 [] and it failed miserably. Too much promised up front with too little returned. Publishers dropped it like a potato before Yahoo! could improve the contextual workings to increase the CTR. I know because I tried it, and quickly discarded it.

Lesson is, don't promise something you can't deliver, or are planning to deliver at a later date. Odds are, publishers will return to the "tried and true" and never look back.

Re:Competition is good but... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783672)

... will it work? Yahoo! tried this back in 2005 [] and it failed miserably. Too much promised up front with too little returned. Publishers dropped it like a potato before Yahoo! could improve the contextual workings to increase the CTR. I know because I tried it, and quickly discarded it.

Lesson is, don't promise something you can't deliver, or are planning to deliver at a later date. Odds are, publishers will return to the "tried and true" and never look back.

Yahoo's problem is the glut of ads in everything. I hated it so much I left Yahoo and all their groups and stuff behind. Perhaps if they weren't so intent on cramming ads in like crazy they might succeed with only a few here and there and ditch the *&$%@ flash ads. God, how I HATE flash ads.

Re:Competition is good but... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35792256)

From what I can tell FB ads are nothing but the dregs of the internet. They've never really been targeted at me except now after about 6 months of activity in Python related groups I now get the same ad asking me if I want to teach python which no doubt points to some questionable school.

WTF (1, Interesting)

autospa (2003166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782886)

it is just a rumor, and i think if it gonna happen it will be the death of facebook.

Re:WTF (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35782920)

it is just a rumor, and i think if it gonna happen it will be the death of facebook.

then how can we most efficiently encourage it?

Re:WTF (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783372)

I think you're crazy if you think this will kill facebook. I am not sure how it would even dent it.

Will it get past AdBlock Plus? (3, Insightful)

NixieBunny (859050) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782892)

If not, then I don't expect to notice a change in the Internet.

Re:Will it get past AdBlock Plus? (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 3 years ago | (#35782970)

I'm go even one step further and block them in /etc/hosts . I don't trust a single hair on Zuckerberg's head.

Re:Will it get past AdBlock Plus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35783082)

Use SiteBlock, this will also remove all links and other traces of crapbook, including all those crappy widget that make the internet feel like it's 1999 again.

Re:Will it get past AdBlock Plus? (1)

praxis (19962) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783164)

Do you mean SiteBlock for Chrome or BlockSite for Firefox, or something different altogether?

Re:Will it get past AdBlock Plus? (1)

geegel (1587009) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783192)

You forget that AdBlock only has a marginal rate of use among common users.

That being said, this platform will have its inherent limitations. Chief among them the fact that you can only advertise to FB users and second due to the fact that the landing page must be developed on a FB page. The first is not really a problem (the user base is huge), but with the second you can expect a lower conversion rate than with Google because the users will have to go through one additional hop and the exit points abound.

Will be interesting to watch either way.

Re:Will it get past AdBlock Plus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35784290)

It really wouldnt need to based on FB profiles. Their javascript is already everywhere according to no-script. I have no idea what they already may know.

Re:Will it get past AdBlock Plus? (1)

Viewsonic (584922) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784712)

They may be indistinguishable from user updates.

Bob: I love cheese.

Tide Ultra: Now with new scent!

Bill: My dog is eating its own feces! [picture] [+18 Liked this]

Tim: I became one of the unemployed today... Huge layoffs. [+2 Liked this]

HOSTS files are SUPERIOR to AdBlock & DNS alon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35788134)

"Ever since I've installed a host file ( to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)




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.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> []

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:



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

"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."


"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 -> [] 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 -> []

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:

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: [] []

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 -> [] ) & 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:

US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth: []

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)


and people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:


15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy [] , 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 -> [] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: [] 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: []


Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge: []


Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware: []


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


Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills: []


Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web: []


Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It: []


Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware: []














London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware: []


Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads: []


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, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:


Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills: []


It's easily done too, 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):



"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 (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: []



(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): []

(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: []


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


DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion: []




TimeWarner DNS Hijacking: []


DNS Re-Binding Attacks: []


DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture: []


Photobucket's DNS records hijacked by Turkish hacking group: []


Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability: []


BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning: []


DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs: []


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


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 [] (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 (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> [] !


"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 -> [] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> [] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!


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)) - 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 ( 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

They are giving away free webmasters!? (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783042)

What does this mean (from the article summary):

Facebook will be offering webmasters to place facebook ads on their websites."

Facebook is offering everyone free webmasters?

Re:They are giving away free webmasters!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35783144)

Selling slaves is illegal, so they started selling masters.

2 sentences to proofread! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786758)

There wer TWO sentences in the submission to proofread. Two. And the second sentence doesn't make sense.

I know this is slashdot, but come on.

Social Network's Role In History (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35783134)

Seems to me that if this goes through and the 'complete monetization of your personal information' as postulated above occurs, The Social Network will be be viewed through the lens of history as less a fictionalized account and more an unheeded, desperate warning: "this billionaire is a shitbag, we told you, and you let this happen anyway". CUE THE COMPARISONS OF TRENT REZNOR TO WAGNER. *backs away with arms outstretched to thunderous applause*

In that case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35783188)

I plan on using more adblocking or using Facebook even less than I already do

Re:In that case (1)

Bucc5062 (856482) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783486)

I think a wonderful whitehat hack would be to get every Firefox/Chome install to have adblock installed and set to block FB ads. If IE has ad block then include that one as well.

Most consumers are not aware of plugins like adblock(+) et al. Having the tech community get all uppy with "I'm done with FB' wont even register with FB since the bulk of users, at this point, are not tech savvy. Blanket block ads from a hack...people wont know the difference, maybe even be thankful that they are free of ads, and send a message to data scrapping companies that maybe, just maybe the public is tired to in your face ads, targeted or not.

I barely use FB these days and I notice that chatter and traffic has dropped amongst "friends" once they (and I) realized that getting daily updates was to time consuming to maintain. Were it to drop tomorrow I would not miss it, just as I don't mis Myspace, Geocities, AOL, or anything that tried to monetize my attempt to chat with friends, family, and peers.

A tangible advantage (1)

RichM (754883) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783232)

They do, at least, have a genuine advantage here because they already know what you are interested in.

If you list your hobbies as action movies, rock concerts and computer books then you can expect to see adverts for Netflix, Ticketmaster and Waterstones etc.

Business-wise, it's a brilliant idea and if I ran a business I would be all over this.
But it's slightly creepy, I find.
I'll be opting out or outright blocking Facebook (yes, you can bet money on it being opt-out only).

Re:A tangible advantage (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784338)

Their methods aren't perfect. For instance, my profile listed me as single and 30 years old. So I got a bunch of ads that asked if I'm in my 30's and lonely. I'm not in my 30's yet, although next year I will be. I have never had any interest in a dating site and no amount of clicking the "thumbs down" button would change the ads to something I might actually be interested in. I eventually had to change my relationship status to "in a relationship" just to get less annoying ads. In fact, rather than looking at my profile information, they would have built a better profile by trusting my thumbs downs.

Re:A tangible advantage (1)

KidPix (1512501) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784426)

How is this an advantage over Google? I'd think your search history is a more honest and detailed representation of your interests than a facebook profile.

Re:A tangible advantage (1)

laktech (998064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785158)

FB is simply going to utilize a different vector which as other posts have suggested may or may not be better than search history, among the other piece of data utilized by Google. FB has data that Google has been eagerly attempting to garner (with little success) and exploit to enhance targeted advertising. In this environment, one is not only able to take advantage of the direct personal information revealed by the user but also able to infer additional information by analyzing the users social network and it's complex relationship web. This is extremely powerful. In fact, a particular advantage of utilizing such a vector proposed by FB is that it does not rely on search history. Just because I'm searching for "Albert Einstein" does not mean I'm interested in a book on relativity or a search for Bob Dylan I'm suddenly going to buy his CDs. In stead, analyzing my social network will allow for the ability to display ads generated by my social network which in theory are relevant irrespective of my search history profile. Example, FB can easily deduce that a close friend of mine with whom I frequently attend "clubs" (by analzying event history) has purchased a clubbing shirt. An ad of this type may be more relevant than a Bob Dylan CD. This could even go further and this interference could occur in a completely different social circle that happens to correlate with my social network. Extremely powerful tool.

Re:A tangible advantage (1)

RichM (754883) | more than 3 years ago | (#35796382)

Not always, I'm betting that the majority of searches are actually performed while at work.
No doubt they are relevant to your profession, but how many are in a shopping mood while Googling for "Outlook error E3298112"?

Re:A tangible advantage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35798380)

Please, this one is easy:

The Unofficial Guide to Outlook 2007

The real question is, how will Facebook know that all my interests are meant ironically? My point is that profiles are often filled with humor, trite platitudes, and cliches. In their own way, these are all kinds of lies we tell about ourselves. I do get the power of advertising based on friend groups and stated interests, but I doubt that it offers a substantive advantage.

Can't wait (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783302)

... to see which of my friends gets the Fleshlight ad placed on their profile pages!

Oh great... (1)

PmanAce (1679902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35783454)

Can't wait to see them Farmville ads.

can't wait for facebook to die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35783680)

I don't use it. I don't know anyone normal who uses it. And I'd rather share my personal info through a company that at least tries to "do no evil" than through a company that thinks that "pushing my information out there" is their prime job.

Death of the Internet (1)

kjblue (2034478) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784410)

Google ads, killed youtube, now facebook, next the world :/

My Friends as Ads (1)

sherriw (794536) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784490)

I can see this coming. Pictures of my Friends will appear on websites pushing products or even the services of that website. Welcome to Best Buy Sherri, your Friend Jane was just here and bought Harry Potter on BluRay! [like].


Log out immediately after doing anything on any site.

Business diversity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35784498)

Facebook is attempting to branch out and diversify it's business, this is very common once a corporation gets large especially Facebook's size. Should social networking change in a radical way or evaporate like a fad Facebook could cease to exist within a year.

The last thing I want to see (1)

pokyo (1987720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784734)

While browsing for adult entertainment: "Why not try 'Big Black On Campus', watched 5 times by your sister Grace."

Love my adblockers (1)

JeanInMontana (2020420) | more than 3 years ago | (#35784884)

I don't see ads using Firefox from Google or anyone. Good luck Facebook, people do have choices. I choose NO ADS.

Re:Love my adblockers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786212)

I don't see ads either. On Friday, however, I went to and typed in "whois lookup" and it came back with a page telling me that I was blocked for engaging in "unauthorized behaviour". I kid you not. I disabled my ad blocker and tried again, and Google came back with the normal search results that I was expecting. Incredulously, I turned my ad blocker back on and tried it again, but couldn't duplicate it. Not sure what happened, but it didn't look good.

Whoa. This is huge - for some sites. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786022)

Facebook has demographic data that Google would kill for. I think that AdSense style FaceBook ads would be much more profitable for certain classes of websites than Google's AdSense.

A tech site like Slashdot... or my own niche site? It's probably not a game changer.

But, a generic news site that get's a low advertising rate on AdSense since they're too general in nature? An FB powered ad that can provide a targeted niche to the advertiser will be excellent. A fashion company could follow their demographic around, as they browse the web. I have at least one client that would jump that that opportunity.

Unfortunately, that means that those demographically targeted ads for cars, and dating sites will follow me all over the web, in addition to whenever I log into FB.

As a webmaster (1)

benmarvin (1457645) | more than 3 years ago | (#35789458)

It makes perfect sense to put Facebook type ads on my website. Just like AdSense is contextual to the content, Facebook ads will be tailored to the user. Assuming they're logged into Facebook, like such as with FB comments. Showing ads relevant to their location, "likes", etc. If the money is competitive with other ad networks I could see this being very successful for Facebook. As a web user however, I would find it as annoying as the ads on Facebook itself.

If it's anything like the ads on FB it'll suck (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35792216)

The ads I see on facebook rarely have anything in common with my tastes. More often than not they've been about credit cards, credit checks and toned abs. With my awesome financial management and lack of care for the perfect abs I'm not sure how they figure I'd ever click those.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?