Beta
×

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, Washington State Sue Firm Over Clickjacking

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the just-trying-to-earn-a-living dept.

Facebook 71

Trailrunner7 writes "Facebook and the state of Washington are suing an ad network they accuse of encouraging people to spread spam through clickjacking schemes and other tactics. The company at the center of the allegations, Adscend Media, denies the charges and said it will fight them vigorously. According to the office of Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna, the company paid and encouraged scammers to design Facebook pages to bait users into visiting Websites that pay the company. The bait pages would appear in posts that seem to originate from a person's Facebook friends and offer visitors an opportunity to view 'provocative' content in exchange for clicking the 'like' button on the Facebook page."

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

Is it clickjacking or spamming or marketing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38853139)

Is guiding someone towards a web-site or towards a button to click upon really considered click-jacking? Or is it really only marketing and spamming? Does "mens rea" play a part? Or is there more to this story?

Re:Is it clickjacking or spamming or marketing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38853215)

I have a gun, and I am not afraid to use it!
Take this click to Cuba!

Re:Is it clickjacking or spamming or marketing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38853233)

GET THE HELL OUT OF THE CLICK, FOO

*gets in click, drives off*

Slashdot, how am I supposed to clickjack if I can't yell? :(

if spammers can abuse something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38853145)

...they will.

Incentivized likes (5, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38853225)

Facebook is designed to spread SHIT as a core feature; it's a spam machine.
Are you really saying there is a distinction between good and evil "likes"?

Re:Incentivized likes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38853241)

Facebook is designed to spread SHIT as a core feature; it's a spam machine.
Are you really saying there is a distinction between good and evil "likes"?

How the hell does one of the most hated companies become so popular?

Re:Incentivized likes (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38853267)

It's (usually) hated amongst the smart people. There are more stupid people than smart people.

Re:Incentivized likes (3, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38853695)

I think that it has everything to do with the fact that most people will whore out their privacy and dignity in exchange for attention.

I got into an online argument with a cheerleader instructor about how cheerleading was not a thinking person's sport, and she responded that my point was nullified because she was a cheerleader and has two master's degrees.

Facebook is just like cheerleading in that otherwise intelligent women will proudly and gratuitously display their underarms and crotches to legions of horny boys and pervert papas.

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854053)

I think that it has everything to do with the fact that most people will whore out their privacy and dignity in exchange for attention.

... which they wouldn't desperately need if they were honest about who they are and cultivated meaningful, healthy relationships with people they truly care about.

Instead, the general model is to be phony, to say things and do things and adopt mannerisms as part of putting on a show in order to impress people, win their approval, present a front of conformity to be counted as "one of them" ("them" being whatever sub-culture they subscribe to), and most of all to say things they say because they are inoffensive and expected, not because they are true. This leads to shallow relationships where you take turns exploiting each other to feel better about your lives and feel likable or fulfilled, and count your willingness to be used by the other person as "love" or "graciousness" while demanding they do the same.

While it may feel real, any "caring" there is completely phony because it's a means to an end. Just like most people who say they're sorry aren't sorry they did something wrong; they're sorry they got caught. It's all a matter of responding to the strongest or the most steady social pressure. There is no self-hood in it. It's pressure acting hand-in-glove through the self in lieu of real self-realization.

After a while, this is accepted as normal and, lacking much basis for comparison (plus having no real desire to seek them out), people forget how phony and type-cast they are.

Facebook is just like cheerleading in that otherwise intelligent women will proudly and gratuitously display their underarms and crotches to legions of horny boys and pervert papas.

Of course. For women with no real spiritual life, inner joy, or self-respect, titillating and being a sex object is the only way they know how to be celebrated or to feel appreciated. In fact most of them are addicted to the feeling of power they get from the attention they can command. That's why most women hate sluts because sluts give away for free what could be parcelled out in exchange for power.

Understanding how this works is not a function of the intellect. It's more within the realm of EQ or so-called emotional intelligence, what old timers would call plain old wisdom and maturity (back when everyone was expected to have those by adulthood). They could have IQs of 250 and still fail to understand this because it's not a matter of reasoning or figuring something out. It's a matter of insight and discernment. I assure you, no college teaches those because they cannot be taught as a series of memorized steps the same way you'd learn how to operate a machine.

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854199)

Instead, the general model is to be phony, to say things and do things and adopt mannerisms as part of putting on a show in order to impress people, win their approval, present a front of conformity to be counted as "one of them" ("them" being whatever sub-culture they subscribe to)

What, you mean like posting about how only stupid, dysfunctional people like Facebook on Slashdot?

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854873)

That's an awfully broad brush you're painting with. First off, just because someone has lots of friends on Facebook does not mean they're not forming deep, meaningful relationships with those people. Sure, the majority of one's contacts on Facebook would probably be better categorized as acquaintances than actual friends, but that doesn't mean everyone you're connected with on the site is merely an acquaintance. That's absurd on the face of it.

Second, has it ever occurred to you that some women (and men) enjoy being a "sex object" because they genuinely enjoy sex and don't attach the same meaning and hangups to it that you appear to? Maybe you should think about why you think sex is somehow related to power and that it has to be exchanged for anything at all, rather than just enjoyed for the pleasure it can bring to an individual, a couple, or a group.

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855641)

Everyone has a deep, meaningful relationship with ten thousand individuals, right?

(pauses to reconsider the monkey theory)

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#38857109)

Probably not, but they might find 10000 people interesting enough to listen to.

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 2 years ago | (#38857729)

Did you even read my post?

Don't bother answering, it's clear you did not or you would not have thrown out a strawman so quickly.

Blogs v. Social Networks Cage Match! (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#38857081)

I think that it has everything to do with the fact that most people will whore out their privacy and dignity in exchange for attention.

My irony meter just pegged.

I got into an online argument with a cheerleader instructor about how cheerleading was not a thinking person's sport, and she responded that my point was nullified because she was a cheerleader and has two master's degrees.
 

There are thinking person's sports?

Yeah, that was a class move, insulting the woman's job. Did anybody tell you cheereleading, like most sports and games, is for fun?

Re:Incentivized likes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38853705)

So it has the same pattern for success as NASCAR?

Re:Incentivized likes (4, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38853849)

NASCAR at least has a significant number of fans who appreciate it because they have background knowledge in auto mechanics and racing. To the average layman, it's a bunch of fat rednecks watching cars drive in circles, waiting for the next crash. But the truth is that a good number of those "laymen" fans are taking into account a multitude of background knowledge like bore, stroke, gear ratios, camber, statistics, power/weight ratio, turbocharging, supercharging, etc; all of which add tremendously to the experience.

You know that feeling yourself when you try to mouth off the specs of your computer or WoW character to somebody who doesn't know or care.

Facebook, on the other hand, is not itself interesting, even to most technically inclined folks. The only people who care about its technical internals or operation are its employees. Everybody else just uses it for attention and circle-jerking.

Re:Incentivized likes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38853899)

But the truth is that a good number of those "laymen" fans are taking into account a multitude of background knowledge like bore, stroke, gear ratios, camber, statistics, power/weight ratio, turbocharging, supercharging, etc; all of which add tremendously to the experience.

For that matter, cheerleading involves unimaginably difficult coordination and acrobatics.

Also hot cheerleaders.

The only people who care about its technical internals or operation are its employees.

...And the massive market that has sprung up around Facebook, relying on its API/etc.

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854569)

wait? how much do gear ratios really play in nascar? it's not like the brakes get used much or that there is much acceleration. They have a way to shed drag when behind another car so they only have drafting/not drafting to contend with. Aren't the engines required to be naturally aspirated rendering the turbos and supercharger discussions worthless?

I'm sure the cars camber, brake balance, and tire pressures are tuned for the car/track, but to be honest, I haven't really seen tech side of nascar like I do with F1. Also when will they catch up in terms of safety with F1 or even MotoGP?

Anyways, good drivers, and the stats can be fun.

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

carpefishus (1515573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38858729)

NASCAR is safer than F1. Also, more interesting cuz they can pass. They also use quite a bit of brake. It depends on the track. They also, which may be surprising to you, have a peddle that is used for acceleration. You will find that cars that don't have acceleration don't go very fast.

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854883)

You obviously haven't read through any of the docs Facebook has published on how they run their data centers, or really looked at HPHP, their solution to compiling PHP. It's actually very interesting to anyone interested in how to handle millions of web transactions per second.

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854301)

It's (usually) hated amongst the smart people. There are more stupid people than smart people.

I'll bet that you use it though.

Re:Incentivized likes (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854773)

correction: you don't *use* facebook.

you use drugs. but facebook uses you.

its not just a play on sentence structure, either.

Facebook uses YOU! (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854819)

But soviet Russians use VKontakte.ru instead.

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855835)

Thank you ever so much for insulting me for liking Facebook and Google +.

Fuck you, too.

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38859027)

It's (usually) hated amongst the smart people. There are more stupid people than smart people.

There may be some truth to that. But more generally, it's hated by people who love Linux, Science, Religion Bashing, & Star Wars/Star Trek but loved by popular people.

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

moozey (2437812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38853269)

I think it's only hated on Slashdot...

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38853295)

I think it's only hated on Slashdot...

Hated by most of my colleagues who don't lurk here... the negative response to it is among select groups I agree, and Slashdot is one of them.

Re:Incentivized likes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38853459)

Combining:

It's (usually) hated amongst the smart people. There are more stupid people than smart people.

and

I think it's only hated on Slashdot...

I guess Slashdot is were all the brains are... hmmm... strokes beard.

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 2 years ago | (#38853933)

Facebook is designed to spread SHIT as a core feature; it's a spam machine. Are you really saying there is a distinction between good and evil "likes"?

How the hell does one of the most hated companies become so popular?

PEBKAC

And, if you have to ask...

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855833)

The same way anything else "hated" becomes popular -- by paying attention to the MASSES instead of a few loud-mouthed nay-sayers.

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856663)

How the hell does one of the most hated companies become so popular?

The same way traveling salesmen and carnival hucksters win elections

Re:Incentivized likes (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38857601)

dunno, is there a difference between email you receive from your friends and spam sent by spam-bots?

of course there is - if there isn't, you're doing social networking wrong.

Facebook, spammers accusing spammers (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38853329)

This requires dredging up the old movie quote, "What do you call it when assassins accuse the assassin?"

Who Watches the Coastguard? (5, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 2 years ago | (#38853613)

The irony is thick with this one.

"Social Media" is basically designed to be click-bait. That's the only way they can recoup the investment money from the Venture Capitalists.

Sure, they might all start out being about "connecting and sharing with your friends" but then they hit critical mass and have to make some money. So they turn into whoring advertising machines. No longer are you just following your friends, but you're suckered into following companies, so you can win tickets to a Lady Gaga concert.

Now they complain about "clickjacking"?

Fuck "social media", and fuck Slashdot for putting goddamned Facebook and Twitter links under every fucking post.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (4, Interesting)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38853861)

The really shitty thing about Facebook is that it doesn't just affect the people who somehow got suckered into using it. It also affects everybody that uses the internet to do anything at all. Stupid [F] and Like buttons cluttering up every g'dang page out there with their third-party javascript includes and whatnot, slowing everything down.

Which brings me to my secondary, related, rant - why is it that it's always the advertising taking too damn long to load that slows down pages while browsing? Shouldn't those bits be the fastest-loading parts of the page, since the advertising companies make their money by spitting out images and things to be viewed? If all I see is a box and an hourglass, I'm not going to know what stupid product I'm supposed to start buying....

Oh, yeah, and the privacy thing, too. In fifteen years, we're not going to have D's and R's in congress any more, but not because things will have improved. Instead, we're going to have the whomever the hell Mark Zuckerberg feels like keeping drunk party pictures under wraps for party...

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38853913)

In fifteen years...we're going to have whomever the hell Mark Zuckerberg feels like keeping...

In fifteen years, nobody will know who Mark Zuckerberg is. Sure, he'll be living comfortably in the same gated neighborhood as other affluent has-beens, but the economic lessons were already learned from MySpace. There's no Facebook IPO because every sane investor knows that Facebook is a house of cards.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854853)

There are lots of not-so-sane investors (anyone investing in stocks other than large portfolio funds), and Facebook's IPO is expected next week.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

JohnG (93975) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854087)

In fifteen years, we're not going to have D's and R's in congress any more, but not because things will have improved. Instead, we're going to have the whomever the hell Mark Zuckerberg feels like keeping drunk party pictures under wraps for party...

Either that, or the next generation, having grown up around social media, will realize that everyone has drunken party pics or embarrassing costume party pics, or what have you and it will no longer be an issue.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (2)

dangitman (862676) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854115)

Either that, or the next generation, having grown up around social media, will realize that everyone has drunken party pics or embarrassing costume party pics, or what have you and it will no longer be an issue.

What makes you think this is new? Your parents, and probably your grandparents had embarrassing pictures of them. That doesn't stop people judging them.

Just look at the "celebrity" media. People are eager to destroy supermodels who wear the wrong kind of bathing suit, or who have gained a couple of pounds. And the people who want to destroy them are the same people who look like fat slobs compared to the supermodel.

This will never be a non-issue. Human hypocrisy knows no bounds. Facebook photos which would otherwise be ignored will become scandalous once the subject steps into the spotlight.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

JohnG (93975) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854609)

Scandalous photos aren't new, but social networks that make them a click away are. In order to see my grandparents drunken party photos, I would have had to sneak into their bedroom, rifle through their closet, and rummage through a stack of printed photos. As people's craziness becomes more and more exposed to the public eye, it will become more of a non-issue. If you don't believe me, go back in time and ask your grandparents how they feel about gays getting married, couples living together out of wedlock, or any other activity that was once never talked about and is now common place.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854721)

Absolute bullshit. Just look at reality TV, the judgment just gets more and more trivial and insane. You can be a social pariah for wearing the wrong-colored dress, or for singing off-key.

I'm not sure what world you're living in, if you think that the ubiquity of social media leads to less harsh judgment.

If you don't believe me, go back in time and ask your grandparents how they feel about gays getting married, couples living together out of wedlock, or any other activity that was once never talked about and is now common place.

I don't need to go back in time. I regularly speak to my 91-year-old grandmother, who is absolutely fine with all of that.

You have a revisionist view of history. It's not like being gay or rebellious is a new thing, our grandparents were once young and did these things, too.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

MindPhlux (304416) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854915)

I'm not sure what world you're living in, if you think reality TV is any sort of a baseline for how normal society and people think/operate.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854947)

I'm not sure what world you're living in, if you think reality TV is any sort of a baseline for how normal society and people think/operate.

That's exactly how "normal" people think/operate.

It's the tyranny of minute differences. You don't need to be on reality TV to see that people routinely judge each other on the most superficial bullshit.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

JohnG (93975) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854951)

I don't need to go back in time. I regularly speak to my 91-year-old grandmother, who is absolutely fine with all of that.

You have a revisionist view of history. It's not like being gay or rebellious is a new thing, our grandparents were once young and did these things, too.

If you think that homosexuals were accepted as well 70 years ago as they are today then I am not the one with revisionist history. The key word in social media is media. In your grandparents day, that would have been radio and early television. I don't see a lot of openly gay characters on the Dick Van Dyke show or I Love Lucy. As society changed, they began to appear in media. The younger generation grew up with more exposure to it, so it wasn't as big of a deal. The new youth is going to grow up with differing views of privacy than we had. Facebook won't be a NEW concept to them. This notion of having all of your pictures shown to anyone won't be something that they have to come to terms with, or learn to deal with. It will be something that they already have come to terms with and already have learned to deal with.

And if the majority of your acquaintances are running around shunning people because they wear the wrong color or sing off key, then it's your world that I question. Not mine. Does that sort of thing happen? Sure, I guess. But only among the infinitely small minded, and only on issues that don't really matter to anything, such as who is going to win the next episode of whatever flavor of the month reality show is on at the time.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854999)

And if the majority of your acquaintances are running around shunning people because they wear the wrong color or sing off key, then it's your world that I question. Not mine. Does that sort of thing happen? Sure, I guess. But only among the infinitely small minded, and only on issues that don't really matter to anything, such as who is going to win the next episode of whatever flavor of the month reality show is on at the time.

In other words, it matters to a huge amount of people. More Americans care about reality TV shows and celebrity gossip than they do about government policy.

The younger generation grew up with more exposure to it, so it wasn't as big of a deal. The new youth is going to grow up with differing views of privacy than we had.

Exactly the same thing happened with "the youth" who grew up with the scandalous Television and Rock'n'Roll. Those people are in power now, yet not much has changed.

The "social media" is exactly like high-school cliques. You are kidding yourself if you think people who furthered their reputation via Facebook "friends" are going to be more egalitarian than those who grew up before the internet. Dirty politics will not suddenly disappear.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856861)

If you think that homosexuals were accepted as well 70 years ago as they are today then I am not the one with revisionist history. The key word in social media is media. In your grandparents day, that would have been radio and early television. I don't see a lot of openly gay characters on the Dick Van Dyke show or I Love Lucy.

I can't speak for America, but here in the UK, we had famous people like Noel Coward, and numerous actors who were quite obviously "queer as coots" to my grandparents. Some parts of society were offended, and some were not. You might want to read about "the Bloomsbury set".

OTOH, I am now a grandparent (have 4 grandchildren, and the two older ones are teenagers), and some of my friends are gay, but I really hate "I love Lucy" and I have absolutely hated it since the first time I ever saw it.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854907)

Are you freaking kidding me? Kim Kardashian had a sex tape get "leaked" and went from being a nobody to being worth over $50 million. Do you honestly think that scandalous pictures have the power to destroy someone's career now?

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855037)

Are you freaking kidding me? Kim Kardashian had a sex tape get "leaked" and went from being a nobody to being worth over $50 million. Do you honestly think that scandalous pictures have the power to destroy someone's career now?

Well, I guess if you want to have a career as a sex-object celebrity, and have millionaire celebrity parents supporting you, then that wouldn't hurt. But most people aren't in that position.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38855329)

Kim Kardashian had a sex tape get "leaked" ...

And what did the sex-tape prove? That a young, healthy, pretty woman likes a good fuck. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Well, not that shocked.

Who judged it was wrong for a young woman to enjoy sex? Because her audience judged its rightness and to a lesser degree, that someone prostituted her intimate moments to strangers.

When naked photos of Vanessa Williams appeared, her career as a public figurehead did end.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854131)

Just like when the 60's generation got into power and made the drug laws much more sensible since they knew that smoking a little weed was no big deal.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

wannabgeek (323414) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855053)

Which browser do you use? I use Firefox and I block Facebook's scripts (extension: NoScript) and cookies (extension: CookieMonster). And I have set up a separate profile to lurk and see my friends' posts which is the only one I use to check Facebook. I used to be a little permissive of Google, but now I have blocked them too. And run Google inside Chrome for the logged in uses (mail, reader and iGoogle mostly). So, no like or +1 buttons for me.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38859721)

Safari + Adblock, Sometimes Firefox + NoScript, infrequently Chrome (vanilla) or Opera (also vanilla). I always seem to see the annoying graphic links polluting the screen-space, regardless of whether third-party javascript is actually allowed to run.

But the gotcha is that only a small percentage of people actually use those tools. For everyone else, the web is pretty consistently a buggy, slow ad-fest. And also for the rest of us, when we turn off some of the tools to take a peek at what's going on out there on the "regular" web.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38855437)

Stupid [F] and Like buttons cluttering up every g'dang page out there with their third-party javascript includes and whatnot, slowing everything down.

And lets not forget the cookies & other info (stuffed into the request http-header) connected to those button-images, eneabeling the company to follow Facebook users as well as people who want nothing to do with it around whereever they are.

Those are as nefarious as the more well-known 1x1 pixel images which the Web is full with. ... Unless you activily block their servers ofcourse.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 2 years ago | (#38853973)

fuck Slashdot for putting goddamned Facebook and Twitter links under every fucking post.

There's links under posts?

I also don't understand
"As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable advertising. "
Huh? There's advertising?

Must be one of my extensions blocking the ability to turn on advertising so I can turn it off. Lets see - NoScript, FlashBlock, AdBlock Plus, GreaseMonkey (with my custom block APK Slashdot posts), FireBug. Bloody FireBug!

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (5, Interesting)

dangitman (862676) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854089)

Personally, I prefer to confront reality head-on. Hiding the bullshit just inoculates you to what's really happening.

Where's the incentive to support sites that don't engage in shitty practices, if you can make the shitty sites seem better by hiding what they actually do?

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854977)

Personally, I prefer to confront reality head-on. Hiding the bullshit just inoculates you to what's really happening.

Where's the incentive to support sites that don't engage in shitty practices, if you can make the shitty sites seem better by hiding what they actually do?

And yet, here you are, making the pay per view pay.

Your logic makes no sense. How do you become "inoculated" to what you don't experience? (or even "desensitised") How would not participating in, or supporting a practise you don't agree with on Slashdot - have any bearing on whether you visit another site?

The "Like" buttons are there so you'll click on them and raise the search ranking, the ads are pay per view - not pay per conversion. The rates paid by the ads are renegotiated according to traffic and search ranking - if you don't follow them, their value decreases - whether you download them (view) or not has no bearing on whether Slashdot puts them on their.

Buggered if I know what your hair shirt attitude actually achieves - certainly not the results you propose. It just doesn't add up.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855173)

Your logic makes no sense. How do you become "inoculated" to what you don't experience?

The point is that I do experience it, so I know how shitty these sites are. If you don't experience it, you are inoculated, because you are getting a false impression of them.

Slashdot has gone to shit, although the Facebook stuff is only one factor. I used to visit Slashdot nearly every day. Now I visit slashdot less than once per month. The social media rubbish isn't the only factor, but it is a significant one.

If you're blocking all of that, then you continue to support Slashdot more than you should. If you dislike the advertising and social media stuff that Slashdot does so much that you need to block it, then why do you even visit the site?

To me, slashdot has become a last resort to visit when I am extremely bored. I find the social media stuff annoying, but not nearly as annoying as the sites that want to promote weight-loss programs or bogus dating sites. If you're blocking ads and visiting those sites, you're not seeing the true horror that's out there, and you are unconsciously supporting some horrifically selfish assholes.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854927)

"goddamned Facebook and Twitter links" So Google gets a free pass?

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854961)

"goddamned Facebook and Twitter links" So Google gets a free pass?

No, Google+ can fuck off, too.

The difference is that nobody takes Google+ seriously, and t's never going to be in the position of Twitter or Facebook. I just didn't think it worth mentioning the loser of the trinity.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855379)

True, someone has a humerous flowchart posted outside their office near mine for posting social media updates, with questions like "Do you care if your parents see it?", "Do you care if your boss sees it?" (both lead to "Don't post it!" for 'yes')

The very first question is "Do you want anyone to see it?", and to "No" line leads (after a twisty path) to Google+

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

Cpryd001 (2269758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855565)

((Fuck "social media", and fuck Slashdot for putting goddamned Facebook and Twitter links under every fucking post.)) God dammit. As an invisible moderator, I was supposed to rate your comment. But I can't when you say things like that.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38857027)

and fuck Slashdot for putting goddamned Facebook and Twitter links under every fucking post.

Using http://userstyles.org/ [userstyles.org] it is easy to get rid of.

Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 2 years ago | (#38857145)

Using http://userstyles.org/ [userstyles.org] it is easy to get rid of.

That only hides the symptoms. The problem is Slashdot doing it in the first place - it demonstrates subservience to those who wish to monopolise and profit from our lives.

Why is the state proxying for private interest? (1)

lanner (107308) | more than 2 years ago | (#38853753)

So, what is the case for a state government being a proxy for a private interest like facebook? Why are tax dollars going to defend a corporation?

Re:Why is the state proxying for private interest? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38853841)

Probably because Washington state has anti-spam laws on the books, hence the people of Washington state (or ... at least the politicians in WA were paid to) believe that there is a public interest in attacking spammers. Thus... it is not defending a corporation nor is it in proxy for Facebook's interests. They are seperate actions and Adscend must defend themselves in both cases, rather than singly if Facebook and WA were cooperating on one suit.

Re:Why is the state proxying for private interest? (1)

sosume (680416) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855347)

Since when is clickjacking a serious crime? Clicking on a mouse? For real? Lucky that there are no real problems for law enforcement to address. Oh wait..

Re:Why is the state proxying for private interest? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38857617)

well, frauding people that you're collecting money for cancer research isn't a serious crime either untill you do it to more than 10 people

Re:Why is the state proxying for private interest? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38857611)

well, they're not just defending a corporation but the users from fraud which the technique used here pretty much was.

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38853835)

Kinda like a murderer calling down a serial killer for having no taste.

What a world...

Clickjacking (2)

excitedidiot (2442050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854387)

Clickjacking is something that should be done in the privacy of your own home, not on Facebook for the world to see.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?