×

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!

Gawker Media To Require Commenters' Facebook, Twitter, Or Google Logins

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the guys-guys-guys dept.

Facebook 231

First time accepted submitter wynterwynd writes "In a move that seems to be in line with Gawker Media founder Nick Denton's opinion of his sites' commenters, some Gawker Media sites are now instructing their commenters that they will have to link their Gawker commenter ID with their Facebook, Twitter, or Google accounts in order to log in. Is this really a good idea, considering the security issues Gawker has had in the past? Per the article, for 'security purposes' Gawker is 'putting our account security layer in the hands of some of the best in the business — major sites with more security expertise and resources than anyone else on the web.' To my mind, it's hard to see this as anything but a grab to milk Gawker commenters' social networking accounts for targeted ad revenue — which really shouldn't be a surpirse considering Denton's contempt for most of the Gawker community. Is this a step too far for an online community? Is it a cash grab or a genuine effort to encourage secure and responsible posting?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

231 comments

Okay... (5, Insightful)

mholve (1101) | about 2 years ago | (#39513205)

Add Gawker to the same list the New York Times is on. That is, "pass."

Re:Okay... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513375)

If people can't boycott something, they deserve what they get. It's as simple as that.

Re:Okay... (4, Insightful)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 2 years ago | (#39513785)

The St. Paul Pioneer Press went this way last year. Unsurprisingly, participation in the comments has dropped to near zero.

I can see why companies do it - this saves them the trouble of moderation, as people moderate themselves when their real names are used and they conceivably could face real-life consequences for what they post. Is real-life intimidation really the best way to police comments? Certainly not if you want more participation...

I don't have an issue with it. I think the most important right we have online is the right to remain anonymous. I don't want an employer or anyone else to look at my comments on news or sports and judge my worthiness as an employee by them - which is why I simply choose not to participate when companies choose not to allow anonymity.

Re:Okay... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#39514193)

Gawker sites weren't worth anything before. I'm sure Nick is right and his site's have comments without intelligence but if the website has no intelligence then how would you expect to find intelligence in the comments?

goodbye common sense (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 2 years ago | (#39513213)

Nothing like gawker having been hacked before to highlight how bad this is, as appropriately noted.

All this says to me is "don't go to gawker websites or participate in their comment system because it sucks". Is it that hard to figure out when "web 2.0" is a good and/or a bad idea in 2012?

Re:goodbye common sense (4, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#39513365)

Nothing like gawker having been hacked before to highlight how bad this is, as appropriately noted.

How is this "bad"?
Do you understand what is being discussed here? Gawker is not asking for your password for Google/Twitter/Facebook.
Rather, the ask Google (for example) to authenticate you, and Google answers YES, or NO, and never lets Gawker see your password.

Re:goodbye common sense (0)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#39513405)

so you assume.
But as for the "article of questions"... I am not doing Slashdots job for them.
Slashdot, dont you have this new fandangled TV thing where you turn yourselves into journalists?
THEN GO JOURNAL!!!

Re:goodbye common sense (2)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#39513473)

No, it's not what they assume. It's what actually happens.

Re:goodbye common sense (1)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#39513815)

The point is that it can be easily spoofed by nefarious people. If the gawker people are acting shady, like the article questions suggest, do you really believe you should trust them?

Re:goodbye common sense (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#39513909)

They aren't spoofing anything and they are doing nothing shady. These is just using the authentication services provided by ?google, Facebook, etc. it's not giving them access to your account. That is unfounded FUD. And if they were spoofing things it would be easy to spot since you would notice you aren't being directed t the proper login page. Stop falling for FUD.

Re:goodbye common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39514049)

Plenty of sites choose to use social sites to authenticate. There is common. I don't understand what slashdot is upset about.

Re:goodbye common sense (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 2 years ago | (#39513805)

Yes, your password is not being shared - but the method of authentication between the two is a point of additional security risk. How hard is that to understand?

Re:goodbye common sense (2)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#39513935)

What is the security risk? All Gawker gets is whether you were authenticated or not. They don't get access to your account or any of the nonsense FUD being spread around.

Re:goodbye common sense (1)

Migraineman (632203) | about 2 years ago | (#39514145)

So, you're logging-in through the Gawker portal, trusting that Gawker won't peek at the user/pass as they hand it off to Facebook or Twitter or whoever for authentication, right? Doesn't sound like an opportunity for a Gawker-in-the-Middle opportunity?

Further, since they're brokering the connection between you and the comment forum, they'll have access to the authentication credential, which would allow them to snoop your social media resources for as long as the credential is valid - they'd just need to spoof your user session.

Re:goodbye common sense (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 years ago | (#39514181)

What is the security risk? All Gawker gets is whether you were authenticated or not. They don't get access to your account or any of the nonsense FUD being spread around.

Tons of possible fuck ups can happen.
Since you're either retarded or willfully obtuse, I'll spell out one XSS scenario for you.

1) Attacker uploads malicious script to Gawker's site through a flaw in the commenting system.
2) The script replaces the standard "Login with your Google, Facebook, OpenID, or OtherBullshit account" block with a different one.
3) Users who log in don't notice any visible difference, and their credentials are sent off to the attacker.
4) The attacker doesn't want to get caught, so he also passes on the credentials to the legit servers and lets the login process normally.
5) You're fucked.

Don't worry (5, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#39513467)

Didn't you read TFS?

Gawker is "putting our account security layer in the hands of some of the best in the business — major sites with more security expertise and resources than anyone else on the web."

You can rest easy, HBGary is on the case!

Re:goodbye common sense (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | about 2 years ago | (#39513579)

My guess is they use OpenID, which is not as much a security risk as you make it to be. Gawker won't store your username/password (if they're at least semi-competent, which might be questioned ... )

Walling the gardens (1)

Nebulo (29412) | about 2 years ago | (#39513215)

Frost prist!?!

The days of Anonymous Cowards are seemingly coming to a quick close. This abdication of authentication authority seems in-line with the overall garden walling of various sections of the Internet, operating systems, and devices.

nebulo

Nobody cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513219)

Seriously, nobody cares. He "resents" the community because everybody else is making money off of social media, but nobody likes him or his shitty websites.

It's the last of the lumbering dinosaurs, the webring. The stupid geek.net or whatever slashdot is, counts too.

I gave up logging in to slashdot years ago, though I still visit out of habit, more often than not I'm dissapointed.

Fuck you Trolls!

Dumb ass will learn

Not so bad compared to some places (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513233)

At least we're not in China or Korea, where the equivalent versions of these sites require you to use their equivalent of our SSNs in order to post a comment. To post a comment!

I'm a member of one of their sites, and I don't have an account with any of the sites listed. I guess I'm not wanted.

Well that's one less site I will comment on (4, Insightful)

StuartHankins (1020819) | about 2 years ago | (#39513261)

I already don't comment on most sites which require a login (/. is an exception) -- but I can't even imagine wanting to link my personal social media account with a commenting account. What a horrible idea.

The privacy issues alone are a big deal, but sometimes you want to say something that you can't have directly linked back to yourself (for various reasons). I'm not defending criminal activity or hate speech, but I could think of examples where expressing your view could cause issues because of your religion / country of residence / association with others etc.

Re:Well that's one less site I will comment on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513289)

/. doesn't require a login, so it really isn't an exception.

Re:Well that's one less site I will comment on (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39513367)

>>> expressing your view could cause issues because of your religion / country of residence / association with others etc.

Future employment. "Hmmm this guy posts a lot of anti-Bush, anti-Obama, and anti-Romney stuff. My god and he says he voted for that nutjob Ron Paul. Time to trash his resume." ----- Or just plain embarassment. It's bad enough I have posts back to 1988 following me around ~3 decades later, and popping-up when people search my name.

Re:Well that's one less site I will comment on (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 2 years ago | (#39513555)

"Hmmm this guy posts a lot of anti-Bush, anti-Obama, and anti-Romney stuff. My god and he says he voted for that nutjob Ron Paul. Time to trash his resume."

Looks like I'm screwed!

Re:Well that's one less site I will comment on (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about 2 years ago | (#39513641)

And that's why I consider myself lucky that my real name is so common.

Re:Well that's one less site I will comment on (4, Interesting)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | about 2 years ago | (#39513981)

Ditto. One benefit of having a name almost as common as "John Smith" is that the signal-to-noise ratio is far too high for anyone to really know what is actually a legitimate hit or one of the other thousands of "John Smiths" in the world. Plus, I happen to share my name with several very famous people, ranging from musicians to professional athletes to actors, so you're going to have to do some serious digging to find a hit that's not related to one of them. Certainly nothing within the first dozen pages on Google (and that's just when I gave up)...

Funny, when I was a kid I always used to think my name was boring and wanted to change it to something more unique and memorable. Sure am glad I didn't now...

Re:Well that's one less site I will comment on (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513829)

Gawker doesn't even usually post anonymous comments. I don't really ever read them because of this. Comments are one of the most important things to me, and their system seems awkward and skewed.

Re:Well that's one less site I will comment on (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | about 2 years ago | (#39513949)

It has long been held by philosophers and courts that one of the keys to "free speech" is the option of anonymous speech. If you can't give your opinion anonymously, then there's no way you can be sure there will be no retribution.

Cash grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513263)

Like government, there is nothing a private business does or would do that isn't motivated by money.

Any site doing this needs their head examined... (3, Insightful)

mlts (1038732) | about 2 years ago | (#39513265)

Call me naive, but I have no idea why websites like using other social networks for authentication. Is there something so secure that I can trust Facebook with any and all logins and passwords for not just me, but all my users?

Yes, FB and Google have two factor authentication as options, but when it comes to making sure my users have basic security, I'd rather pack my own parachute, and have a dedicated appliance store username/password hashes so if someone owns the rest of my boxes, they can't just scoop out passwords that can be used at other sites.

Maybe this can be a market niche -- a site offering not just OpenID, but a custom API like the old Microsoft Passport allowing people to authenticate from that site, optionally using an app or SecurID key fob.

Re:Any site doing this needs their head examined.. (2)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | about 2 years ago | (#39513453)

> I have no idea why websites like using other social networks for authentication

It's just a way to remove a barrier to entry. Everybody already has a Facebook, Twitter, or Google ID. It's easier (and arguably more secure) to authenticate through one of those services than to ask the user to make and remember yet another set of credentials. There are other reasons as well, but this one is a biggie.

Re:Any site doing this needs their head examined.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513621)

It's just a way to remove a barrier to entry. Everybody already has a Facebook, Twitter, or Google ID. It's easier (and arguably more secure) to authenticate through one of those services than to ask the user to make and remember yet another set of credentials.

No it isn't, all content frameworks have a module for this, the cost is effectively zero and already exists. The only reason iss to make money from targeted adverts once they (and FB or whoever) sell the data. It provides an addition metric to charge *more* for ads. Which is why most sites don't put their content on youtube, preferring retarded bespoke flash playback. They can't use your viewing details to sell to advertisers.

Re:Any site doing this needs their head examined.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513695)

Can also be faster, but more than that, this also facilitates targeted ads - a great moneymaker for both Google and Facebook.

We can probably see that as both a budget cut and cash grab. And Gawker can boot a part of his own security team. And yeah, I don't like this decision.

After all, I'm very happy being an Anonymous Coward on /.

Re:Any site doing this needs their head examined.. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513681)

There are many good reasons. If I were building a new web site from the ground up, I'd probably only allow Google/FB authentication. If I had an existing web site with local authentication, I might switch and I'd definitely prefer Google/FB auth.

You have to analyze the decision from a business/marketing perspective. Site specific logins are a barrier to using any web site. If it is just one click to login with Google/FB you will get a lot more users, it's as simple as that. And returning users have a big barrier to remember username and secure password, particularly if you put onerous restrictions on password strength.

Then there are other softer costs. Managing passwords is troublesome, sometimes requires customer service to intervene or lose users. If you get hacked, you'll have a PR nightmare. Security is hard, better to let someone else with a dedicated staff do it.

And that doesn't even go into the benefits of using social network authentication, like being able to better quality information about those users and get them to draw other users from their network in.

Re:Any site doing this needs their head examined.. (1)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#39513947)

Exactly.

Gawker gets nothing more than your email address (which they already used to require). They ask google if you are who you say, and google logs you in. Gawker never gets your google password, and stores nothing on their own servers (they don't even have to store your gmail address, because your browser will do that for you). At most, Gawker gets a YES or NO, and maybe the name you signed up to Gmail with.

This makes any site more secure, because you have nothing there for hackers to steal.

Re:Any site doing this needs their head examined.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513877)

Facebook has a much better history of security competence than Gawker does. Gawker just doesn't want to deal with the headache anymore, not after what happened a few months ago.

Re:Any site doing this needs their head examined.. (2)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#39514093)

Call me naive, but I have no idea why websites like using other social networks for authentication. Is there something so secure that I can trust Facebook with any and all logins and passwords for not just me, but all my users?

I won't call you naive, just misinformed.

1) Gawker will not know your Google/FB password.
2) You won't have a Gawker password any more.
3) Gawker asks google to authenticate joerandomuser@gmail.com
4) Google pops up a SECURE web page and gathers your gmail password
5) Google sends Gawker a YES or a NO, and possibly your name.

That's it. You have one less password, and you get logged in with what ever gmail account you enter. That gmail account need never be stored on Gawker's server, (unless you ask for notifications of replies or something). Gawker never has any passwords at all.

This makes Gawker less of a hacking target.
It frees Gawker of having to maintain any login system of their own.
It reduces cost.
You still maintain fine grained control of which sites can use this facility (at least with Google via your dashboard).

See https://developers.google.com/accounts/docs/OpenID?hl=pl-PL [google.com] for an explanation of how it works.

The upshot: You want this. You didn't know how it works, so you rightly mistrusted it. But Its better.

I refuse to share my Real Name (5, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39513287)

I refuse to link facebook or twitter or any other account that has my real name. If I can't login under an Email handle/alias then I simply don't post on that website.

Sorry gawker. You lost my business/ad views.

Re:I refuse to share my Real Name (2)

Altanar (56809) | about 2 years ago | (#39513563)

I have a feeling that as time goes on, more and more sites will be losing your business/views.

Re:I refuse to share my Real Name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513903)

I am okay with using it as a form of authentication, but if it forces me to use my real name or handle in public, then no deal.

Many sites do it that way, you just use it to authenticate and it doesn't actually use anything from the linked account if you don't want it to.

But many sites don't do that, and I have issues with that.

Re:I refuse to share my Real Name (2)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | about 2 years ago | (#39514045)

To be fair, they lost my ad views long ago, as has pretty much every other website on the net.

Hooray for adblock and scriptblocker!

Yeah, I know, I'm "stealing the web". Let me count how many sleepless nights I've had over that....uh....how do you count to zero, again?

Issue? What issue? (4, Informative)

neokushan (932374) | about 2 years ago | (#39513291)

The summary, as you might expect, is a little off.
What's happening here is that Gawker is switching from its own account system to using the accounts of existing social services (Google, Facebook or twitter). This is not them asking for your account but rather asking you to AUTHORISE gawker's access to your account details. If this is an issue, please go talk to Disqus or even Twitter/Facebook/Google themselves, who also let you "link" accounts from other services, as well as a bunch of other sites. This is the way the web is going and is nothing new.

Re:Issue? What issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513381)

This is the first I've heard about it being used for a comment system.

Gawker's comment section sucks balls anyway so I doubt it will have much of an effect. But imagine if /. tried that. *crickets*

Re:Issue? What issue? (0)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#39513497)

Then your just ignorant. Comment systems like Discus, for example, have used the same system as well for ages.

Re:Issue? What issue? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513787)

"Then your just ignorant."

Oh the irony.

Re:Issue? What issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513893)

Disqus lets you create a disqus-only account, which is not linked to anything else.

Re:Issue? What issue? (2)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 2 years ago | (#39513419)

AUTHORISE gawker's access to your account details

No thanks.

Twitter/Facebook/Google themselves, who also let you "link" accounts from other services

Big difference. 'let you' vs 'require'

Re:Issue? What issue? (0)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#39513619)

They are wording it incorrectly. What is done is that you login to your Facebook, Google, etc. account and then those sites pass back to the system whether the user was authenticated or not. You aren't giving Gawker access to your account or account details. The summary is written mostly as FUD.

Re:Issue? What issue? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#39513971)

What exactly in my post was trolling? Since when is providing facts and calling out FUD considered 'trolling'?

Re:Issue? What issue? (2)

dgatwood (11270) | about 2 years ago | (#39514061)

No, the summary is not FUD. The way those services work is that they use a Facebook app. Although they do not have access to your account, per se, the app is running as an authorized app in your account, which means that it can do anything that any other Facebook app can do.

Even the base level of permissions [facebook.com] is more than I would trust an arbitrary third-party site to have. If I'm posting on an Internet message board, I don't normally want to post with my full name and photo, and I sure as hell don't want that website to have a list of all my friends, even if it is just their IDs.

I am very selective about what Facebook apps I am willing to authorize. I sure as hell will never authorize an app just to be able to post in some online forum. In effect, this means that by making this decision, they will never get comments by anyone who knows enough about computers to know how Facebook's API works. Basically, they'll be cutting the median tech knowledge level on their message boards in half.

Re:Issue? What issue? (2)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#39513699)

This!

Too many people posting here have no clue about how this works.

But its even more restrictive than that. At least in the case of Google.

Gawker sends an email address to Google, gets a YES or NO from Google. Google pops up its own https page to gather your password. Gawker sees none of this. And Google tells you exactly what Gawker asks for as far as "Real" name (wink wink).

And you can control this from your Google Dashboard "Websites authorized to the Account". If that page (Direct link) [google.com] simply has a listing like the following:

    postings.somesite.com — Sign in using your Google account [ Revoke Access ]

then all they can get from Google is a Yes or NO.

Other third party authentication services may not be as transparent as Google and may not allow as fine grained control.

Re:Issue? What issue? (1)

huge (52607) | about 2 years ago | (#39513773)

This is not them asking for your account but rather asking you to AUTHORISE gawker's access to your account details.

The way I read it is that Gawker is using Facebook as authentication service. Once authenticated Gawker is authorizing you to do certain things, like post comments.

Where's the cash grab tie in? (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#39513301)

Just because you let Google handle the login [google.com] doesn't mean Gawker gets anything more from you than an email address which you were already obligated to provide in the past. And since Gmail is already great at handling spam, there is precious little opportunity for Gawker to profit from this by selling your email address. Spamming Gmail accounts is already a fools errand.

At least in Google's case, they glean nothing either, other than the fact that you use Gawker, but any advertising revenue that comes to google via that knowledge goes to Google, and not Gawker. All they provide Gawker is a YES or NO answer when you ask to log in.

Given the rapidity with which one can create gmail/facebook/twitter accounts it won't assure "secure and responsible" posting either. Its easy enough to have an account that is reserved for such postings, even one per web-site if you want.

All this does is allow Gawker to off-load all user account stuff to some other entity, making them less of a hacking target, because there will be Nothing Much There to Gain. (Some would say this is an attribute of Gawker Media in general.) Having one less web site holding my passwords in an insecure database is a plus as far as I am concerned.

Re:Where's the cash grab tie in? (0)

Relayman (1068986) | about 2 years ago | (#39513421)

And how do I verify that I'm actually signing on to Google and not a phish popup? There is no URL and no security icons showing. I'm going to right-click next time and see if I can find ANYTHING that assures me that I'm not being phished.

Re:Where's the cash grab tie in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513433)

How dare you bring your silly 'facts' into this discussion. Don't you know thatGawker is evil!? EEEEEEEVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL!!!!!!!!!

Re:Where's the cash grab tie in? (2)

capnchicken (664317) | about 2 years ago | (#39513685)

It's unbelievable how far I had to scroll down to find this. Handing off your authentication to another more established entity is a growing trend. I don't remember seeing so much vile when OpenID showed up, but apparently its bad if Gawker uses it, and only wants to use it with the most established entities in the industry. IMHO, it speaks of a pretty good risk assessment after having such a huge security breach.

It does give them more information (2)

pavon (30274) | about 2 years ago | (#39513985)

Just because you let Google handle the login doesn't mean Gawker gets anything more from you than an email address which you were already obligated to provide in the past.

The only situation where that is true is where you previously provided them an email that was already associated with a social networking account (like GMail is). You could avoid providing Gawker with information about your social networking account by using an unrelated email account. No you know longer have that option. You must authenticate using some method which tells Gawker the account you use for social networking. And this is useful information to them. Gawker advertizes on Facebook, this indirectly gives them access to demographics information about the accounts they are advertizing to, which they can now link with Gawker accounts.

All this does is allow Gawker to off-load all user account stuff to some other entity, making them less of a hacking target,

Except research is showing that outsourcing this task is more difficult than people think [arstechnica.com] . Sites that do so are more likely to make a mistake that results in a data breech than those who use their own in-house authentication. Any sort of cross-site integration is tricky from a security point of view, and this is no exception. They haven't made things more secure, they have just introduced another point of failure.

Lifehacker (4, Insightful)

slapout (93640) | about 2 years ago | (#39513305)

I really wish someone would buy Lifehacker. I really like it but not Gawker.

Re:Lifehacker (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#39513549)

Jalopnik should be liberated as well. The journalistic value has gone downhill from the early days but at least it's entertaining.

Re:Lifehacker (3, Insightful)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 2 years ago | (#39513557)

Someone did buy Lifehacker. Unfortunately, it was Gawker. I liked them a lot better back when Gina was still around and Gawker wasn't their corporate overlord.

Re:Lifehacker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513735)

Same here. I used to read daily when Gina T. was there. But she left, content got crappier, and the site redesign was a total turnoff. Nowadays, I visit once a quarter maybe.

Re:Lifehacker (1)

darrylo (97569) | about 2 years ago | (#39514135)

This. It was great when Gina was around, but I believe the quality can, IMO, "vary wildly". My favorite was last year's article on "Thawing Frozen Food in the Washing Machine". I kid you not [lifehacker.com] .

Re:Lifehacker (2)

leolaporte (263297) | about 2 years ago | (#39514137)

Sorry to report, Nick Denton _started_ Lifehacker. It was always a Gawker property. Kind of tainted it for me.

Don't have any of those accounts (2)

amiller2571 (2571883) | about 2 years ago | (#39513353)

So what about those like me, who don't have an account on those social sites?

Re:Don't have any of those accounts (3, Informative)

Caerdwyn (829058) | about 2 years ago | (#39513513)

Then you can't be monetized, and therefore are not of interest to Gawker. From his perspective, you take but contribute nothing in return. Cynical, but Gawker's a business not a charity. They're also criminals, but that's another matter.

Denton's right about comment sections being basically useless, though. Just look around you. Look at Slashdot's comments. Just a bunch of adolescent OS bigots who don't know shit.

Yes, I am aware of the irony.

Re:Don't have any of those accounts (1)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#39513827)

So what about those like me, who don't have an account on those social sites?

Seriously, how hard is it to set up a Gmail account, even if using a fake name.
If you got an android device, you already have a google account.

That's it I'm Gone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513361)

Gawker has been rapidly declining in quality for the past six months. This move seals it, the three sites which I visit regularly are gone from my favorites bar. There are too many good sites where I can waste time.

Punters (2)

koan (80826) | about 2 years ago | (#39513379)

I'm on the Internet where I'm going to sign up for Facebook, Twitter, Gawker, ETC, let them all build a marketing profile off me, let them build a record of my email addresses and friends/associations, allow them to build a psych profile, allow them to determine my worth, and finally I'm going to give them all that for free.

Goldman Sachs referred to their clients as "muppets" I wonder what the above refers to their customer as...

Re:Punters (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 2 years ago | (#39514039)

, and finally I'm going to give them all that for free

No you aren't. You are getting something in return, therefore you aren't getting it for free.

So, basically what they are saying is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513413)

"We suck at security, so here, login with your Facebook, Google+, Twitter if you wish you comment."

BRILLIANT IDEA. Brilliant idea indeed.
Let's just admit failing so hard to the entire internet, then tell them to hand us over other information so that, in the likely case we now get hacked again, you lose even more of your life!
Huzzahs all around.

Gawker, you really know how to make a geek happy.

"responsible" posting? (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | about 2 years ago | (#39513437)

Seriously? Given how many people happily make wall posts that range from the simply offensive to the downright illegal?

Gawker already has 10 tracking services (2)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#39513443)

Gawker already uses tracking from Google, Facebook, Quantcast, Dedicated Networks, Comscore Beacons, Google Analytics, ChartBeat, DoubleClick, Parse.ly, New Relic. (Abine.com has a tool to detect and block such things.)

Now Gawker wants an anal probe, too?

Re:Gawker already has 10 tracking services (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513575)

Blow things out of proportion much?

Who cares? (1)

johnny cashed (590023) | about 2 years ago | (#39513447)

Just use your fake facebook page for your logon. Don't have a fake facebook account? Well that sounds like a personal problem. Poison the data well, make fake accounts. Garbage in, garbage out.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Altanar (56809) | about 2 years ago | (#39513627)

Re:Who cares? (1)

johnny cashed (590023) | about 2 years ago | (#39513749)

Feel free to report me them. PS, the facebook johnny cashed isn't me. You need to be sure of your target before you shoot. Good luck tracking down all the Robert Smiths while you're at it.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39514177)

That's wonderful! A fake name nazi!

While you're at it, how's my grammar.

I notice you don't use your real name here.

idiot

Fuck Nick Denton and Gawker Media (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513527)

I don't need anything they are selling and I never will.

Thansk for the warning (3, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#39513611)

on telling us your devs are not capable of doing their jobs and letting me know I can't use your site because I don't want to use any of the social sites.

Password Reuse: (1)

Hartree (191324) | about 2 years ago | (#39513709)

After all the warnings from about not using the same password on multiple sites the New Hot Thing(tm) is to use a single logon like facebook or google.

If that's guessed or compromised, it can be used at many sites.

How is that any less of a security problem?

The fuuture: "We at Crudnblood Bank value your security. Please log in to your account with your Facebook or Google login."

You Get Who You Write For. (2)

Plastic Pencil (1258364) | about 2 years ago | (#39513737)

Denton: "The idea of capturing the intelligence of the readership — that's a joke."

Ok, I admit, I find some interesting stuff on occasion on Lifehacker, but that aside, with the insidiously moronic nature of the typical Kotaku article, churned out 3 or 4 times per hour, who else does he expect to comment on such contrived stories as this:

http://kotaku.com/5567040/star-treks-levar-burton-is-not-pleased-with-e3 [kotaku.com]

Or just posting random unnamed sources with PS4 specs that sound absurd. No one would get into a protracted, irrational debate about that, based on idle speculation ...
http://kotaku.com/5896996 [kotaku.com]

And here's a real think piece from Gawker.com today:

gawker.com/zooey-deschanel

Can't believe more rocket scientists and doctors aren't jumping in to elevate the conversation...

Exodus (1)

DEFFENDER (469046) | about 2 years ago | (#39513821)

And this is why I avoid them like the plague.... Well that and the political smear story they ran a couple years back.

Can you say Faux Facebook Account ten times fast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513951)

> milk ... commenters' social networking accounts for targeted ad revenue?

Let me know how that works out. I use a dummy Facebook account to comment on Gawker sites. (And I've got dummy Google+ accounts too.) You want to target ads at a FB account I hardly ever look at. Knock yourself out.

So I'm probably in the 0.01% and he'll make money on the other 99.99%. Meh.

Solved the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39513953)

So um...just create a fake Gmail or Facebook account?

Not happening with,me (1)

rickb928 (945187) | about 2 years ago | (#39514013)

1. I don't even link my Pinterest boards with my Facebook account.

2. I've never visited gawker until just now, to see if it could possibly be worth the trouble. Answer is no.

Tracking data outside of Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39514055)

If you're account is associated with Facebook, Twitter, what not. What is stopping Facebook from crawling these websites and tracking down every single comment made on every single article and associating it with your account and part of your information?

Nah...I'm not giving shit to Gawker Media (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#39514069)

I now require Gawker Media to link their lips to my ass.

There...I've just changed my TOS agreement to reflect this change in policy. Their continuing to exist represents their assent to this binding legal contract (and by the way, they also agree to give up any right to legal recourse beyond binding arbitration before a panel made up of me).

I can't tell you how much richer my life has become since I've decided to jettison any commercial entity who I believe is hostile to my best interests. I'm saving thousands of dollars in money and hours of time by simply categorizing any corporation that wants to treat me like a commodity as officially dead to me. Putting all these commercial entities on a permanent pay-no-mind list is incredibly liberating and exhilarating.

There are still enough companies that have a business model where they provide a product or service for a reasonable price which I choose to purchase that my new policy of erasing entire categories of corporations from my life has not meant any deprivation to me at all.

I once used Ghostery and Ad-block and such in judicious manner, choosing only to block corporations whose infractions were egregious. Now, I just block everything and only let through the corporations that I want to support - those that do not require a direct hook-up to my private life because...because fuck you. Surprisingly, I do not miss the "richer end-user experience" that those direct hook-ups provide. Now, I don't care at all that my little decision doesn't mean squat to these corporations, or whether anyone else decides to do as I have done. I don't care because I'm doing it entirely for my own benefit, not to change their behavior or to convince anyone else. Just for me.

What's the big deal ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39514117)

So Gawker finds out that all of their commenters are "evidently" people who are new to the internet since they all have Facebook/Google/Twitter accounts that were just created in the last day or two.

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...