×

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 Spammers Make $20M, Get $100K Fine

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the bad-work-if-you-can-get-it dept.

Facebook 74

jfruh writes "Adscend Media, which has been making up to $20M a year from so-called 'likejacking' spam on Facebook, has reached an agreement with the Attorney General of Washington to stop those activities and pay $100,000 in court costs. Among other nefarious techniques, Adscend would overlay Facebook 'like' buttons with provocative photos to spread links to ads from which Adscend would earn referral fees. Adscend also settled out of court with Facebook for an undisclosed amount."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

74 comments

Adscend Media wasn't spamming (-1, Troll)

Valacity (2634575) | about 2 years ago | (#39928173)

They were third party advertising network in the case. It was their affiliates who were spamming Facebook. If you blame them, then you should blame Google too, as people using AdSense can also spam Facebook with likejacking.

Re:Adscend Media wasn't spamming (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#39928633)

It seems like you're wrong. You and at least 3 people with mod points did not RTFA

In January, McKennaâ(TM)s office and Facebook sued Jeremy Bash and Fehzan Ali, the owners of Adscend Media LLC for initiating posts to Facebook pages that appeared to offer visitors an opportunity to view scandalous or provocative content. However, before being able to view the content, a series of required steps lured Facebook users into eventually visiting commercial websites. Other tactics included âoelikejacking,â in which Facebook users were tricked into clicking the âoelikeâ button, inadvertently spreading the sales pitches to friends.

Adscend, hired to promote products, in turn does business with âoeaffiliatesâ who create attention-getting marketing messages. Too often, according to the Attorney Generalâ(TM)s Office, those messages amounted to social media spam. Todayâ(TM)s settlement enjoins Adscend and its affiliates from initiating messages that contain misleading or false headers or those that hide the true identity of the sender

Ascend was spamming and getting paid by affiliates to spam on their behalf.
I really only have six words for Washington AG: Admission of Liability & Disgorgment of Profits

Re:Adscend Media wasn't spamming (4, Informative)

Valacity (2634575) | about 2 years ago | (#39928811)

Ascend was spamming and getting paid by affiliates to spam on their behalf.

This shows you don't know how online advertising works. Why would affiliates pay Adscend? This is not how it works. Advertisers pay Adscend and in turn Adscend pays affiliates to promote those advertisers, usually for commissions. They act as kind of broker.

The news piece you pasted clearly says this too, especially the part about Adscend doing business with advertisers and then in turn affiliates.

Knowing the field (but not participating on the dark sides of it), there are many products and ways that are meant to hide the activity from these advertising companies. They exist because the affiliates will get (rightly) banned and no money paid when they are found out of doing shit like this.

Re:Adscend Media wasn't spamming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39928995)

Dude, AdSense users are not called "affiliates", they're called "users". "Affiliate [google.com]" presumes a different degree of closeness.

Re:Adscend Media wasn't spamming (2)

jbov (2202938) | about 2 years ago | (#39929681)

Adscend, hired to promote products, in turn does business with "affiliates" who create attention-getting marketing messages.

Adscend was spamming and getting paid by affiliates to spam on their behalf.

Sorry, this is not how it works with Adscend. You need to dig a little deeper than the paragraphs you quoted, since you misinterpreted them.

Adscend was not getting paid by affiliates. Adscend was getting paid by the companies that hired Adscend to do the advertising. In turn, Adscend employed the use of affiliates (subcontractors) to create advertisements and distribute links.

The "affiliates" posted the spam, which linked to their own affiliate web sites either running on the Adscend "content locking" web platform or using the Adscend APIs. The only way the visitor can unlock the content is by performing a predefined task, such as clicking a facebook "like" or providing personal information. The affiliates would create the likejacking buttons.

The money trail:
1) Visitors "like" a company's facebook page.
2) Said company pays Adscend for each "like" generated, as per their advertising agreement.
3) Adscend pays it's affiliate a fixed amount for each "like" generated, as per the affiliate agreement.

It seems like you're wrong. You and at least 3 people with mod points did not RTFA

Well, hopefully it was the "Admission of Liability & Disgorgment[sic] of Profits" statement that earned your +5 Informative.

Re:Adscend Media wasn't spamming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39929925)

I really only have six^H^Heven words for Washington AG: Admission of Liability & Disgorgment of Profits

FTFY

Re:Adscend Media wasn't spamming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39931727)

Fuck Facebook.

Re:Adscend Media wasn't spamming (2)

Ihmhi (1206036) | about 2 years ago | (#39932631)

Admission of Liability & Disgorgment of Profits

It boils down to the simplest understanding of capitalism - if it's profitable, they'll do it.

A $100,000 fine on a $20,000,000 income is viewed as an expense more than anything else.

A $20,100,000 fine would stop this stuff dead cold.

Fines should seize any and all profits made while violating the law and add an additional penalty.

Re:Adscend Media wasn't spamming (1)

Elldallan (901501) | about 2 years ago | (#39940395)

That might actually be the case if one of these cases ever reached sentencing, but since it was settled out of court, thats just an agreement between two parties and I doubt Adscend would accept such an agreement because it's basically the same as the sentence and then it would be better to take their chance in court.

The question is why did the the district atourney settle with Adscend for 100k? Was the governments case THAT flimsy?

Re:Adscend Media wasn't spamming (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39928765)

I take it you didn't read the article and just came here to take a stab at Google as a freshmade account of that same old sockpuppeteer.

It was exactly Adscend Media that did the clickjacking, that's why they were sued (not just 'blamed'). Did you miss the part where "affiliate" means "closely related", unlike, you know, customer-provider relations of AdSense user with Google?

I do hope your backing accounts that modded this up get their due through metamoderation.

Re:Adscend Media wasn't spamming (2)

jbov (2202938) | about 2 years ago | (#39929295)

Yet it is not a problem for Google, because it violates the AdSense program policies [google.com], which are strictly enforced. This is an area where Adscend failed.

Adscend is hired as the advertising company, and their "affiliates" are basically subcontractors. How this would have actually played out in court is unknown. It would depend on the contractual agreements made between the "affiliates" and Adscend, particularly an indemnity clause, as well as Adscend's knowledge of the "likejacking", policies against it or other illegal advertising means, and enforcement of such policies.

Re:Adscend Media wasn't spamming (1)

CubicleView (910143) | about 2 years ago | (#39929485)

Nice try, from a quick search online (I used your favourite search engine Google btw) it seems that Adscend was also accused of supplying the code and templates required for the scam to the "affiliates". Bit of a stretch to say that's the same as AdSense

"Defendants create and provide their affiliates with technology that is designed to deceive Facebook users into visiting websites that pay defendants for the referral traffic. Defendants encourage and pay their affiliates to create Facebook pages that are titled and designed to 'bait' users into visiting other websites,"

Re:Adscend Media wasn't spamming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39931219)

Fuck off, bonch.

The world cators to con-artitst (4, Interesting)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | about 2 years ago | (#39928201)

Likejacker makes 20m, pays 100k

Banks crash the world economy selling junk loans, get 400 billion.

Re:The world cators to con-artitst (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39928269)

Where do the spammers get the money from?

Re:The world cators to con-artitst (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39928287)

Greetings, I'm an angel investor who manages a mutual fund derived from baby boomer pensions and union fees. I would like to know more about your investment ideas. Call me!

Re:The world cators to con-artitst (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39928537)

Sorry, you have to work on Wall Street from the inside. But every time there's a bull market in either stocks or housing, there should be another opportunity to hire "the smartest people in the room" who construct "fail-safe" financial instruments and strategies that nobody can understand, eventually managing to lose every cent of OPM (and require taxpayer bailouts) while raking in 8 or 9 figures USD for themselves for at least a few peak years.

Makes these spammers look like amateurs.

Re:The world cators to con-artitst (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39930333)

Sorry, you have to work on Wall Street from the inside. But every time there's a bull market in either stocks or housing, there should be another opportunity to hire "the smartest people in the room" who construct "fail-safe" financial instruments and strategies that nobody can understand, eventually managing to lose every cent of OPM (and require taxpayer bailouts) while raking in 8 or 9 figures USD for themselves for at least a few peak years.

Sounds like they were the smartest people in the room.

Seriously speaking, (and setting the bailouts aside), there were winners and losers on these high-risk derivatives. Nobody held a gun to the heads of the losers and told them to make the deal. Nobody held a gun to the heads of the people who took out zero-down mortgages at the peak of the market. Do you want protection from that? That's what a nanny state is. Do you really want the government to assume you are incapable of managing your own financial decisions (even if that assumption is correct)?

There is a general sentiment on slashdot that individual users should keep their computer patched and bear some responsibility when it is used maliciously as part of a botnet. Well, people should also be responsible for how their money is used and held partially at fault when they let someone else manage it poorly.

Re:The world cators to con-artitst (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | about 2 years ago | (#39933077)

Spammers like these are armatures. Take my life please.

Re:The world cators to con-artitst (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39940521)

These armatures you speak of, are they geth heretics or plain old regular geth?

Re:The world cators to con-artitst (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39928495)

You know that didnt actually happen right?

Re:The world cators to con-artitst (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39929225)

It's not the world, Einstein, it's the big money + bought government pansy / thugs. Crony capitalism. We 99% would love to decimate them.

Re:The world cators to con-artitst (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 2 years ago | (#39929603)

Idiots buy junk loans and crash the world economy.

Re:The world cators to con-artitst (1)

s-whs (959229) | about 2 years ago | (#39929863)

Idiots buy junk loans and crash the world economy.

That is a moronic comment. It's just like saying "Only idiots trust their doctors for medical advice".

Re:The world cators to con-artitst (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 2 years ago | (#39930135)

Many doctors now get trips and free drugs from pharmaceutical companies to push their particular form of drugs.
So. No. I do not blindly trust them. They are no longer what they once were.
When people paid for their own medical care Doctors needed to take oaths and be serious about them. Doctors were held up on a pedestal and at the time deservedly so. Now they are owned by Medicare, HMOs, and Drug companies. They are doing commercials pushing diet aids and herbal remedies to make your dick bigger. They now must be listened to the same way as you would listen to a care salesman. A good one will point you toward the best car that he has in stock for you. A bad one will push you into the car that makes him the most money. None or at best exceedingly few would point out that what you need they can not offer.
So only an idiot does not do any research and blindly follows their doctors advice.

Re:The world cators to con-artitst (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39931287)

I went to a new dermatologist for the first time for some psoriasis issues. He was big time pimping a spray drug. When I asked for a generic equivalent with the same active ingredient he mentioned that the cream form is generic but it might take 5 minutes to apply and that this awesome non generic spray only took a few seconds. Dude, I have a 10 sq inch spot that needs treatment, no way in hell it is going to take me 5 minutes to put some cream on that. He then handed my a prescription payment card which would get me the spray he was pimping for only a $10 copay. I'll admit, the spray does work great but that shit is over $500 dollars a bottle for a s month supply. The cream version is $15 which is only $5 above my generic deductible. I paid the same either way but that's just not right and I don;t really trust him.

Re:The world cators to con-artitst (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 2 years ago | (#39933171)

But it is not the same cost.
Or even close. Because of crap like this insurance rates are an order of magnitude higher than they need to be.
If we went back to people paying for their care we would be more prudent with the money we are spending.
Insurance as it currently is is a cluster fuck of regulations and spending. Government is just going to make it worse.

Fixed that for you... (1)

t4ng* (1092951) | about 2 years ago | (#39930339)

"Idiots" buy triple A rated investment instruments, find out too late they were lied to, world economy crashes.

Re:Fixed that for you... (2)

Sentrion (964745) | about 2 years ago | (#39933313)

The self-appointed experts who got on national TV news programs or in other ways to advise the public at-large that they will not have enough money to retire unless they invest in the stock market should have to answer for their false claims. Even Bob Dole got on the radio with a public service announcement to say that "markets rebound, they always do". Most of his retired audience at the time have now died broke and penniless. Ed McMahon is a sad example. When I first had a salary and money to invest the "irrefutable" advice of the time was to buy-and-hold. Those who regularly dropped bad stocks for better stocks were the butt of jokes because grandma just bought ten companies, held them for 30 years, and retired better than all those stock traders. Now look and see who's pimping the buy-and-hold theory these days. Nobody. But Dave Ramsey says that any half-wit investor can average out a 12% return over the course of five years or so. And don't get me started on Cramer, Orman, Trump, or Kiyosaki. Though I would give Kiyosaki credit for warning that a home is not an asset years before so many people overspent on their homes with the speculative presumption that their salaries would increase as well as their house values. So many of the people at the peak were panic buyers, convinced that in just a few more years house prices would be so great that they would not have a chance in the future to even buy their own homes. Where were the experts then to calm them down? They were silent, or at least there wasn't enough airtime to squeeze them in between the best-selling authors.

The greatest trick of all time was taking away the pensions of the working class and telling them they had to invest in a 401k for retirement. Most of these 401k plans still lack essential investment options, like a gold or precious metals fund, or a commodities fund, or even an affordable cash fund. In most cases a money market account in a 401k is going to lose value over time due to the high maintenance costs compared to the low returns. By having no choice but to pick between 6 to 10 fund options, most working Americans were stuck holding the bag of confusing and sub-prime investments and most still don't even know it. If that's not bad enough, when was the last time you voted as a stockholder for the stocks that were held in your 401k? It's like handing your money to a complete stranger and then saying, "no we don't need a contract. Spend it however you like. I just assume it will come back with a return." The inmates were running the asylum and we gave them the keys!

So, working Americans were duped into believing they could compete in the stock market even though they were limited to one trade per month when the day-traders were taking advantage of price fluctuations that lasted for less than one second. Most Americans had no way to understand the investments on the same level as their Goldman Sachs counterparts. Even when a few 401k investors were willing to educate themselves they were limited to macro-scale investments, such as index funds or managed growth funds, for which the economic fundamentals cannot be as easily explored as owning an equally diversified portfolio of ten individual stocks. But America's employed workforce will continue to follow the delusion that they are "investors" until forty years from now they do the math and find out they would have been better off owning hard assets like the house they live in with enough land to grow their own food supply and sufficient guns and ammo to defend it. Or they could have pooled their savings with their peers to lobby Congress like their corporate overlords did to pass things like caps on malpractice suits, bankruptcy "reform", and mandatory health coverage without a public option or the teeth to make insurers actually pay for medically necessary care.

Clearly there's only one smart thing to do here. (5, Funny)

conner_bw (120497) | about 2 years ago | (#39928335)

I think we can all agree that Facebook should buy them for a billion dollars.

Problem solved!

Re:Clearly there's only one smart thing to do here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39928461)

"one billionty dollars"

Provocative "Like" Buttons? (4, Funny)

virgnarus (1949790) | about 2 years ago | (#39928551)

I don't understand, how provocative can you be with those tiny "Like" buttons? Maybe enough space to show 1/5th of a nipple? Perhaps they just color it with a skin tone to give people the impression they're looking at a naked button.

Re:Provocative "Like" Buttons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39928989)

I didn't rtfa, but it sounds like they did a variation of click jacking. Eg, overlay invisible like buttons over the image.

Re:Provocative "Like" Buttons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39938655)

"Funny" indeed, how the first thing you come up with for "provocative" is a nipple and naked skin.

That's what's wrong with you fucking hillbillies. Death and murder no problem. A nipple, OMG!

Did you hear about the six-year old(!) kid who was singing "I'm sexy and I know it" to a class mate and was suspended for sexual harrassment? You people are fucking sick. SICK.

Bad summary? (3, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39928561)

They didn't "make" 20 million. They collected 13 million in 2011, minus operating and labor costs, and earned about 2 million overall. So they were hit with a 5% fine.

Re:Bad summary? (4, Funny)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#39928679)

They didn't "make" 20 million.

Hey, let's be fair. The summary didn't say they made 20 million. It said they made "up to" 20 million. "Up to" just means "less than".

I have up to a billion dollars in my pocket.

Re:Bad summary? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39930229)

I have up to a billion dollars in my pocket.

Do you have up to a billion dollars in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

Re:Bad summary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39930635)

Oh yeah?! Well, in my pocket, I have up to a billion dollars or more!

Re:Bad summary? (4, Funny)

istartedi (132515) | about 2 years ago | (#39928889)

So they were hit with a 5% fine

So, from the PoV of a scammer the government is on par with real estate agents.

Moral of the story (4, Insightful)

Rooked_One (591287) | about 2 years ago | (#39928745)

crime pays... like that's not a known fact by now.

Only in america.

Re:Moral of the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39928893)

McKinna probably sees them as a potential donor. Don't want to piss them off.

So what was Facebook's take? (1)

swb (14022) | about 2 years ago | (#39928933)

I want to know what Facebook's share of the loot was and how Facebook profited from this.

Why does it seem like the small government imposed fine was small intentionally so that the larger part of the penalty could be a settlement with Facebook?

Which in my mind smells like Facebook profiting on their own complaint, which is a pretty sweet deal when you can complain to the government about somebody gaming your system (and hence, depriving you of a cut) and then get the government to basically recover your lost profits for you.

This is why all anti-spam laws are a joke (1)

Arrogant-Bastard (141720) | about 2 years ago | (#39929131)

First, the obvious reason: as we've seen over and over and over again, spammers can make huge sums of money and then settle up pre-trial for a fraction of it. Then they can dissolve the company, move somewhere else, reincorporate, and use both the capital acquired and the lessons learned to try their hand at something even more abusive. The classic example of this is Sanford Wallace, but he's not the only one.

Second, the non-obvious reason: Facebook are spammers. But we don't see any AG going after them, because they're big and powerful, and they've wrapped themselves in the cloak of corporate respectability.

Re:This is why all anti-spam laws are a joke (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#39929675)

I don't get it: how is Facebook a spammer? You have to actually go to their site to do anything, though many third-party sites put FB's "like" button on their news articles or whatever, but that's their right. A "spammer" is someone who forces their advertising on you whether you want it or not, without asking first or getting you to ask for it.

That'll teach them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39929161)

"...and, for the rest of your days, you shall feel the shame of not being able to afford the Gulfstream G6, and have to settle for an older G4. May God have mercy on your soul."

The unfortunate truth (1)

nlitement (1098451) | about 2 years ago | (#39929207)

It's unfortunate that so many of my peers seem to blindly allow any kind of Facebook script/application run even if it requires the ability to post under your name, spreading spam like this. I have to admit I've clicked on a few of these links sometimes, those along the lines of "biggest boobs ever! Must watch" out of curiosity, only to be redirected to a malicious app at which point I just left the page.

The same goes for these new, legitimate news readers that tell which articles your friends read on Guardian for example, and clicking on the link leads to an app requesting permission to spy on me. No thanks, I'll just Google the damn title of the article if it's that hard to give me a direct link, ffs.

Re:The unfortunate truth (1)

Sentrion (964745) | about 2 years ago | (#39933447)

You have to watch out for those "legitimate" news outlets. I clicked on an app for News of the World and they started recording and rebroadcasting all the calls going through my cell phone.

Re:The unfortunate truth (1)

quranreading1 (2446474) | about 2 years ago | (#39938229)

Yes, this also happened with me. I clicked to a new link and it asked me to go to this application, and it started scanning my pc for errors. I closed my browser soon. So, we should be careful of these apps.

There's a whole industry spamming social (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#39929275)

There's a whole industry out there spamming "social". At the top are the advertisers who want results and don't ask too many questions. Below them are the SEO firms, advertising things like "Guaranteed first page listings or your money back". [youtube.com] Below them are the businesses that sell "bulk Likes", "+1"s, and fake reviews.

But that's not the bottom of the swamp. The people generating fake social rankings need services to help them. So there are outfits which sell fake Google, Facebook, and Yelp accounts in bulk. Software companies which sell tools for creating fake accounts in bulk. ("250,000 +1 votes per day on a fast connection" ) Outsourcing firms which create fake accounts. These operations tend not to advertise openly, but can be found on "black hat" SEO forums.

They, in turn, need support services. They need fake IP addresses and fake phone numbers for verification calls. There are services to provide those. You can rent phone numbers in bulk for 20 minutes. Bulk IP addresses, needed for bulk fake account creation, come from proxies, many of which come from malware on compromised machines. This is down at the organized crime level.

See our paper "Social is bad for search, and search is bad for social" [sitetruth.com] for the gory details.

This all started in late 2010, when Google started feeding "local" social data into web search results. There had been social spamming before that, but it was a minor business. Once Google went "social", social spamming took off. Now, social spamming is mainstream SEO. It's cheaper than running a link farm. It's also safer. There's seldom any retaliation from the search engines for social spamming. Even if they detect a fake social account, they can't tie it back to the source. With link farms, the whole farm can be banned, which can shut down a SEO firm.

Re:There's a whole industry spamming social (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 2 years ago | (#39930325)

Now, social spamming is mainstream SEO. It's cheaper than running a link farm. It's also safer. There's seldom any retaliation from the search engines for social spamming.

If you're artificially inflating the user counts of Google+, Google is likely on your side, since they're doing that anyway.

Re:There's a whole industry spamming social (1)

Sentrion (964745) | about 2 years ago | (#39933577)

Don't knock these outsource support services. There's no way I could post as often on Slashdot and maintain my good Karma without a lot help from my virtual team based in Calcutta.

Reading the verdict in Mike Myers voice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39929283)

And for this you shall pay... *pinky to the mouth* ... ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS! Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Seriously, most of this lawsuits are not even "wristslapped", it's somewhere about "sternly talked to".

100K out of (up to) 20 mil? (1)

BlueshiftVFX (1158033) | about 2 years ago | (#39930039)

Sounds like a minor service charge in the cost of doing business. The Govt. seems to be acting like a mafia racket where they don't want to thwart this activity, they just want a slice of the pie.

I Have To Wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39931485)

How much they've put out in political contributions to the right palms?

Re:I Have To Wonder... (1)

Sentrion (964745) | about 2 years ago | (#39933685)

They don't have to. Most sitting judges these days want to get paid more by working for the private arbitration firms, and the best way to land one of those gigs is to have a steady track record of screwing consumers and siding with business in every ruling. Consumers never insist that their corporate suppliers of goods and services include binding arbitration clauses in their contracts. Arbitrators work for business, not consumers, and everybody knows it.

Anybody else getting the feeling... (2)

bbbaldie (935205) | about 2 years ago | (#39931741)

...that Facebook is already past its prime? I'm getting a serious AOL flashback every time I read something like this, that it's teenyboppers and grandmas who are affected, most other demographics have already moved on to Google+ and the like.

They Spent the Money (1)

doston (2372830) | about 2 years ago | (#39932145)

Like on Brewster's Millions, they spent $20 million in 20 days, but only rented everything. The scoundrels did some accounting after a last minute furniture deposit snafu and found the $100k. It was all the government could take!! Now for the real prize....the $200,000,000 windfall from Uncle Rupert!!

It's kind of ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39933241)

To watch (constitution fucking facebook fascists and their stupid users) getting fucked by market exploitation terrorists, all under the corrupt eye of the domestic terrorists at the doj.

I expect next to hear about how baseball bat manufacturers get sued because their 24" bat won't fit up people they are fucking's ass.
Na, they wouldn't let that story get out.
Instead it will be spamming facebook is a felony next. Just watch.

And McKenna wants to be Governor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39936627)

Shit. I need to incorporate now, find something crazy illegal, do it well and set aside $100k for when I am found out.

One pat on the bottom for killing fifty people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39974075)

If they made $20M and were found guilty of Doing It Wrong, shouldn't they have to pay $20M?

Check for New 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...