×

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 Deletes Social Fixer Community Page Without Explanation

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the cartoon-supervillain dept.

Facebook 192

New submitter ComradeF writes "Matt Kruse, author of the Social Fixer for Facebook browser extension, warns users of the dangers of building a community on a platform that can and will shut you down on a whim: 'It's gone. Years of work and almost 340,000 fans, wiped out. Erased. I have never been given any details about what "community standards" I was apparently violating (because I wasn't). This is a case of Facebook choosing to shut down someone's business just because they want to, not because they were doing anything wrong. This is extremely frustrating and disappointing to me, and should be to others as well.' The administrators and moderators of his Page found that their personal Facebook accounts have been silenced for 12 hours, as well." I've recently installed Social Fixer, and find it tremendously useful; this news just inspired me to donate a few bucks to Kruse — cheaper than what Mark Zuckerberg would like to hear my complaint.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

192 comments

forthy piss (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44829763)

nice and warm frothy piss

Re:forthy piss (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44829955)

Yes, but watch out for the first person "replying" to your FP with something entirely unrelated, just so they can get their own post to appear higher up than it would have gone if it had been posted (correctly) as a top-level comment.

Warning: Cynicism Inside: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44829787)

You know, if your business model is based on telling people not to trust the channel you are using to advertise yourself, it would generate a good bit of publicity to completely shut down that advertisement and blame the channel.

In this specific case, if you are telling people to distrust Facebook, with a Facebook group, you'll get a lot of blog posts and Twitting if you shut down the Facebook group with no warning. Also, steal a couple screenshots and practice coordinated silence with your co-workers to hoist up the deception.

Re:Warning: Cynicism Inside: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44829965)

If you read his blog post, his page was first "unpublished" because it allegedly contained Spam. He chose to appeal the decision, and after a few weeks the appeal was denied and the page deleted.

I'd be interested to hear Facebook's side of the story, because right now all we've heard is what this guy has to say, and he obviously has a vested interest in making it appear that he's completely innocent.

Re:Warning: Cynicism Inside: (5, Insightful)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 7 months ago | (#44830137)

In this specific case, if you are telling people to distrust Facebook, with a Facebook group, you'll get a lot of blog posts and Twitting if you shut down the Facebook group with no warning.

To be blunt, you have to wonder if people like this are more a part of the problem than the solution they purport to be.

The real- and obvious- fundamental problem is how Facebook operates their site. This company's product merely papers over the symptoms with a "solution" that doesn't address the real issue, and will only *ever* be short term, breakable at a whim by Facebook themselves. But by making Facebook more palatable over the short term, they hide this problem and encourage people to stay with the site.

It's a waste of effort that might annoy Facebook but ultimately plays into their hands. Fundamentally, if it doesn't encourage Facebook to change their behaviour and/or policies *or* work on moving people away to another service- or whatever- then it's still a part of the Facebook ecosystem and encouraging its use (and hence supporting its cynical behaviour and discouraging other, more responsible approaches to social networking).

Of course, it might suit *them* from a business point-of-view to be doing this anyway, but for everyone else it's not so great.

Re:Warning: Cynicism Inside: (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 7 months ago | (#44830219)

What a farce. Facebook makes it's money off spam, hence the reason if you report something as spam or offensive it will STILL pop up on your newsfeed.

Re:Warning: Cynicism Inside: (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830019)

Ah, the class and critical thinking of slashdot on display, yet again.

I detest these, "I'm not sayin', just sayin'" kinds of comments online.

Let's try something new:

If you're accusing the people involved of pulling a scam like the one you describe, then come right out and say it, and provide your evidence.

If you can't/won't do that, then STFU.

Re:Warning: Cynicism Inside: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830045)

Did you look at anything in the links? At all?

Social Fixer does not have a business model of "telling people not to trust" Facebook. It's an addon/extension that lets you tweak UI elements of Facebook. Your whole comment is irrelevant.

Re:Warning: Cynicism Inside: (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830101)

Did you look at anything in the links? At all?

Social Fixer does not have a business model of "telling people not to trust" Facebook. It's an addon/extension that lets you tweak UI elements of Facebook. Your whole comment is irrelevant.

The entire story is irrelevant.
Summary: Guy makes extension which alters FB page rendering, which is a violation of their TOS. He gets ignored while makers of other extensions which do similar things get shut down. FB finally shuts him down, tells him why. Dipshit Slashdot poster creates article with bullshit headline and summary which lacks details, Dice quickly promotes to front page to generate clicks.

Re:Warning: Cynicism Inside: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830119)

Was it a self fulfilling prophecy? Was it initially designed to get enough attention that FB would prove him right by deleting his page? NO

This guy's intentions were straight forward and he happened to use FB as one means of getting the word out about his "make FB tolerable" browser extension.

FB sees him as a threat to their "we're going to shove ads up your ass so hang in there guys" marketing philosophy. Just wait for FB to require you to watch a video ad before letting you proceed to your own page.

It's pretty simple actually - Do Some Evil. (5, Interesting)

teknopurge (199509) | about 7 months ago | (#44829799)

As a company providing APIs and encouraging development on your platform is great as long as you maintain control. The problem with APIs is apps can, provided the APIs provide enough of the right data, totally remove your influence in favor of the developer using your APIs. I first saw this Social Fixer app a few weeks back and I immediately thought "finally, someone that will remind us who owns facebook: the users." Facebook will have no revenue if they cannot monetize the marketing of their site, and with free APIs they can't do that. Paid APIs? Devs want free access, so you'll kill your dev community if you start charging.

Re:It's pretty simple actually - Do Some Evil. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830039)

Nope. This story is about this guy crying because FB is finally being fair. They've shut down several other extensions which alter how FB pages are rendered, and that's what his extension does. He even posts a link to an Ars Technica article about him and his extension, which clearly explains what happened to other people who tried making extensions that alter the page rendering. Here's what FB's legal team said to one of those other authors:

"Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities prohibits integrations that impair the proper working or appearance of Facebook, including those that interfere with page rendering Your extension was reported as interfering with and/or impairing site functionality and page rendering and links to your site have been blocked.”

Here's the full Ars Article: http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/08/meet-matt-kruse-the-man-making-facebook-better/

Re:It's pretty simple actually - Do Some Evil. (5, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | about 7 months ago | (#44830587)

This really tells it in a nutshell.

This extension doesn't "interfere with or impair" the USER at all -- in fact, it does what the user wants.

Now we know for whose benefit that nonsense is written (like we didn't before, but meh...)

Re:It's pretty simple actually - Do Some Evil. (2)

ChrisMaple (607946) | about 7 months ago | (#44831073)

Considering how obscured and anti-intuitive Facebook is, it's difficult to understand how they can complain about changes impairing its "proper working or appearance".

Re:It's pretty simple actually - Do Some Evil. (4, Insightful)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 7 months ago | (#44831175)

That's the same lame-ass argument those serving ads whine over -- you shouldn't have control over how to present the page or block parts of it which is total bullocks.

When I look at content -- I want it tailored for me -- so I can quickly separate the noise from the signal.

If some company wants to cry that somebody is making their content MORE valuable by providing OPTIONS for how people view then they are being extremely short-sighted and not understanding the value the community brings.

Blizzard learnt this by _allowing_ custom UI mods in World of Warcraft. Years later the best mods have become built into the game. /sarcasm Oh noes! "Someone is altering our page rendering" Quick, sue the browser makers!!

Re:It's pretty simple actually - Do Some Evil. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830255)

The users don't own Facebook. The users are the product that Facebook sells to advertisers.

Re:It's pretty simple actually - Do Some Evil. (2)

gsslay (807818) | about 7 months ago | (#44830471)

"finally, someone that will remind us who owns facebook: the users."

Someone please mod parent as "funny", for this hilarious statement alone.

Of course Facebook killed it! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44829821)

It lets mere users control what they see on their own Facebook pages, rather than Facebook and advertisers determining it.

What was he thinking?

Re:Of course Facebook killed it! (5, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | about 7 months ago | (#44829855)

To be completely fair, it was highly irresponsible to not do everything you're told to by a corporation. They want what's best for everyone.

Re:Of course Facebook killed it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44829919)

"Everyone" meaning "the corp's stockholders", which in practice means "the corp's major stockholders", which often means "the corp's top executives and founder(s)['(s) heir(s)]."

It's all about $$$$

Re:Of course Facebook killed it! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830367)

"Everyone" meaning "the corp's stockholders", which in practice means "the corp's major stockholders", which often means "the corp's top executives and founder(s)['(s) heir(s)]." It's all about $$$$

Yeah... to be fair, most of us understood that this was the whole (cynical) point underlying the sarcastic humour in the original post.

Re:Of course Facebook killed it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44831081)

"Everyone" meaning "the corp's stockholders", which in practice means "the corp's major stockholders", which often means "the corp's top executives and founder(s)['(s) heir(s)]."

It's all about $$$$

Yeah... to be fair, most of us understood that this was the whole (cynical) point underlying the sarcastic humour in the original post.

I had my humor gland removed, you insensitive clod!

Re:Of course Facebook killed it! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830113)

Any more or less irresponsible than basing your business on another business' product and crying about it when the parent business pulls the plug on your endeavor? I swear I've never seen so many people cry about leaching off the works of others then screaming bloody murder when the host decides to cut them off.
 
You want free music, free movies and you want to suck another business dry by circumventing their business model while latching off the infrastructure they've built and have the gull to wonder why these entities want to protect their interests? It floors me how obtuse you people are.
 
Go make your own social network if you hate Facebook so much instead of trying to rook them for creating a successful business. No one is stopping you from building your own. Where's the innovation?

Re:Of course Facebook killed it! (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 7 months ago | (#44830245)

Facebook faces negative publicity for a choice they make == me intentionally destroying them and robbing them.

Re:Of course Facebook killed it! (2)

Qzukk (229616) | about 7 months ago | (#44830493)

Sorry, your complaining about the 200 grit lube is destroying stockholder value.

Re:Of course Facebook killed it! (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 7 months ago | (#44830135)

It lets mere users control what they see on their own Facebook pages, rather than Facebook and advertisers determining it.

What was he thinking?

..if it's just client side, what did they do to block it? sounds like there's something more to it.

Re:Of course Facebook killed it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830461)

They closed his FB page.. And they can pull the plug on his API key, if he's using that to access the graph API directly. If it's just screen scraping/applying CSS and shit, there's nothing facebook can do, any more than they can "pull the plug" on people blocking image downloads on slow browsers.

Re:Of course Facebook killed it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830641)

It lets mere users control what they see on their own Facebook pages, rather than Facebook and advertisers determining it.

What was he thinking?

You say that in jest, but you leave out the element that actually DOES make him sound like a moron: He also willingly let Facebook control its very existence, despite everything it did to Facebook's advertisers (and thus, their bottom line).

If you lock yourself into the tiger enclosure at the zoo, steal their food, and constantly poke them with sticks, you don't blame the tigers when they maul your sorry ass. In the same sense, if you lock yourself into Facebook's ecosystem, use that system to encourage people NOT to use the service in the most lucrative way possible for Facebook, and poke them with sticks, you don't blame Facebook when they shut you down.

Because it's easier (3, Insightful)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about 7 months ago | (#44829839)

To throw a few lawyers and systems administrators and delete the problem than it is to hire a few good interaction designers to fix it and deny the folks in marketing their 10 pieces of mandatory Facebook flair.

Re:Because it's easier (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830179)

"a few good interaction designers" can't fix FB's "suck on our ads!" mentality.

I wonder when they'll start with ads overlaying your FB friends' posts that you have to close in order to see the content. It will be like a suckass version of some game. The overlay will move to another post (higher or lower in your feed based on what direction you've been scrolling).

Owned! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44829843)

That's EXACTLY what you get when you don't own the server on which your "site" is based. Regardless of the user agreement, TOS, or whatever, this will happen on any such site. You were immensely naive to have not realised this to begin.
 
captcha: unkindly
 
Sorry, but some times, the truth hurts. :(

Re:Owned! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830041)

You mean "the Cloud" isn't here to shower money and praise unto us?

Horrible social media site does horrible things. (3, Interesting)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about 7 months ago | (#44829871)

News at 11.
(On a more serious note, the same thing happened to the extension FB Purity [fbpurity.com] .

Re:Horrible social media site does horrible things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830035)

Yeah. Zero sympathy. FB is not a company you want to have anything to do with. Get the fuck out.

Only just learned this? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44829875)

Anyone that has no control over what their business requires is going to fail sooner or later. If it was a genuine business, Kruse should have a contract in place with Facebook, like every other entity that needs Facebook's APIs and data for their own business.

Good. (3, Insightful)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 7 months ago | (#44829891)

Stop giving up your life to big business, and they'll stop being able to tear you a new one.

This isn't like that other article, where the British government is selling off a natural monopoly so you're forced to use a particular business. This is you thinking that you are entitled to get Zuckerberg to do anything more than widen the smile on his deservedly smug face.

Re:Good. (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 7 months ago | (#44830103)

Stop giving up your life to big business, and they'll stop being able to tear you a new one.

This isn't like that other article, where the British government is selling off a natural monopoly so you're forced to use a particular business. This is you thinking that you are entitled to get Zuckerberg to do anything more than widen the smile on his deservedly smug face.

Or, at least, chose a big business that doesn't have so much market power. There are plenty of suppliers who offer, y'know, actually-two-sided contracts, or (this one blows my mind; but it's true) actually run a business where they do better by not screwing over their customers. It's crazy. There are also suppliers who sell commodities, and the worst they can do is give their competitors' salesweasels a good day.

And yet... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44829897)

And yet, like a battered spouse, he'll go right back to Facebook.

Simple Solution (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44829899)

He writes an application that runs on top of your browser when it's looking at facebook. why not throw in some code to re-imagine his fan page the way it was before? This could serve as the start of a way to wean users from facebook altogether, give them a little real content mixed with more open data (like a social media aggregator) and eventually replace the entire facebook experience with an aggregated one that can share/source on any platform. that way, when one provider does something silly (or vengeful, whatever) the app just routes around it.

Re:Simple Solution (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 7 months ago | (#44830723)

This will be Google's killer app/plugin!

Once installed it will merge your facebook and G+ feeds.
It will create a circle on G+ called facebook or some such and eventually everyone on facebook will be using G+.
Profit!

Play with the bull you're going to get the horns (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44829915)

If Facebook violated a contract then they have grounds for legal action. Otherwise, to quote Airplace "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say 'let'em crash'". caveat emptor

Dump your FB stock now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44829925)

The reasons should be self-evident.

This is what you get when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44829933)

... you put all your Internet traffic in a few mega-sites (Facebook / Google / Yahoo / et. al.), instead of using a distributed protocol. How I long for some protocol where one person cannot control a large portion of traffic.

Not Surprising at all! (4, Insightful)

Phrogman (80473) | about 7 months ago | (#44829937)

Facebook got rid of something that took away their control over how the users interacted with FB's pages. Is that surprising? FB wants direct interaction and monitoring of its cattle so that it can package up their information to sell to the highest bidder. Why would they tolerate anything that threatens that by giving users better control over their use of the site. It might hide some useful information that they are gathering by the inefficient design they have created.

Facebook: always remember you are the product, not the customer. The customers are Big Business (and now the NSA apparently) :P

This is why every single user should delete their FB account.

Re:Not Surprising at all! (5, Informative)

udachny (2454394) | about 7 months ago | (#44830151)

As I understand it they deleted the guy's page on FB, but they can't as easily destroy the browser extensions (addons) that he built for FF, Chrome, Opera and Safari. He will keep working on those, but he lost his FB account.

Thank you for not RTFA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830167)

Facebook got rid of a page on Facebook which describes Social Fixer and provided a link to the distribution point, and support for SF. The actual distribution point, located off of Facebook's servers, still exists, and Social Fixer STILL WORKS. (The same can be said for the other, "banned" extension, Facebook Purity.)

When you (Facebook) design your product (Facebook) to run as a javascript app within a user's browser, you have ALREADY GIVEN UP total control of your site.

Re:Not Surprising at all! (1)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#44830275)

"Facebook got rid of something that took away their control over how the users interacted with FB's pages."

The web was specifically designed to prevent that from happening.

And then intentionally gimped to allow it.

Turn off javascript and take back the web.

Re:Not Surprising at all! (4, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | about 7 months ago | (#44830665)

>This is why every single user should delete their FB account.

And go where, Yahoo, G+, Geocities?

Even Usenet is harvested 100 different ways to Sunday.

All these posts in this thread saying "stop interacting with big business." Have y'all looked around? Try doing that without becoming a hermit living in the woods. The battle has been lost, folks.

"B...but Diaspora!" Diaspora is slow and to really take advantage of it, you have to run your own server, which means that 99 percent of users can't even wrap their heads around the concept.

>NSA

They're in the NOCs. Good luck with that.

--
BMO

Re:Not Surprising at all! (2)

Valdrax (32670) | about 7 months ago | (#44830931)

"B...but Diaspora!" Diaspora is slow and to really take advantage of it, you have to run your own server, which means that 99 percent of users can't even wrap their heads around the concept.

Forget the concept. 99% of users can't even do it because it would be a violation of their terms of service.

Re:Not Surprising at all! (1)

sydneyfong (410107) | about 7 months ago | (#44831195)

And go where, Yahoo, G+, Geocities?

Slashdot, of course! The OP is obviously a paying customer of Slashdot, and he disables all advertisements, uses a fake username and email, so that he never becomes a "product" by Big Customers buying his personal info and eyeballs.

And this is why he hasn't deleted his Slashdot account yet.

Re:Not Surprising at all! (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 7 months ago | (#44831229)

> This is why every single user should delete their FB account

Sadly, that will never happen: People have become wussies. Instead of doing something about they will just bitch about it, and keep using it.

But yes that is the proper solution to send the proper message: Critical mass take control back by stopping giving their power away. That is the only way corporations will ever "learn". Unfortunately people, in mass, aren't that smart. :-((

. /queue next internet fad in 5 years ...

Streisand.... (3, Insightful)

bazorg (911295) | about 7 months ago | (#44829951)

Quite remarkable idea for a Firefox extension. I have to try it immediately!

Re:Streisand.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830729)

me too!

brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44831017)

viral marketing at it's best, thanks slashdot

Hmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44829971)

I have a sneaking suspicion that in a month or so facebook is going to release a "premium" interface, which will be disturbingly similar to Social Fixer.

Re:Hmm (2)

gsslay (807818) | about 7 months ago | (#44830553)

Bet you a gazillion dollars they won't. Such a move would create a hierarchy of facebook user, and facebook is happy to have everyone on the same "cattle-class" interface. Indeed, that's its whole business model. Give me your data and consume your adverts!

File An Antitrust Lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44829979)

There's a good argument to be made that Facebook monopolizes social networks. And they're big enough to merit the lawsuit. This looks like a clear opening.

Why would a business invest in Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44829985)

I've experienced this recently. The fact that you can't actually talk to a human at Facebook for this makes it a giant pain. I wouldn't recommend anyone spend any significant amount of money on Facebook advertising because even their marketing folks don't know how to contact support. Sure, spend $1,000 getting a bunch of likes only to have Facebook delete your page the next day.

Quit going into the monsters cave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44829987)

The facebook monster is evil. Why you keep entering the cave and inviting friends and family is beyond me.

Ideas.... (4, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | about 7 months ago | (#44830011)

Like every updated forcing me to "like" his page automatically, so I have to unlike it on every update. That's kind of scummy for his greasemonkey script to auto like pages.

Not deleted (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 7 months ago | (#44830053)

Gone from the easily accessible ... sure. Deleted? No way.

Facebook doesn't delete anything. Ever.

They can put it back anytime they want.

$10 says that once enough people bitch, we'll here some BS excuse about an accident or bug and it suddenly re-appear.

What? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830073)

Didn't Slashdot just link to an article on Ars how he was almost recruited by Facebook and how he steered clear of certain areas of customization?
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/08/25/2053214/meet-the-programmer-behind-social-fixer

Well, well, well. (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 7 months ago | (#44830079)

I'm not entirely taken with Nicholas Carr; but he has a useful little coinage to cover this situation: "Digital sharecropper".

It beats real sharecropping (sometimes you get air conditioning, and even paid in real money rather than scrip and debt peonage!); but if your business (or your hobby, though businesses tend to be more financially painful) depends on a third party, with which you have absolutely no leverage other than their power and mere pleasure, (and where your business consists largely of making their business incrementally more successful), you are a sharecropper. And, while the timing of the crackdown is sometimes rather baffling, since it doesn't even seem to be to the landlord's advantage, it is closer to being an inevitability than a mere possibility.

This doesn't mean that you have to do everything 100% alone in order to not be a sharecropper, commodities are safe enough, as are companies so mired in the demands of actually-powerful customers that they will have difficultly cutting the feet out from under you at a greater than glacial pace; but a situation where you are 100% dependent on a single third party who has the right, and the ability, to cut you down just by revoking an API key or deleting a page on their own servers? They own you.

Hmmmm .... (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 7 months ago | (#44830125)

his is a case of Facebook choosing to shut down someone's business just because they want to, not because they were doing anything wrong.

Isn't one of the things Social Fixer is doing is trying to prevent Facebook et al from tracking you?

So, if you have a community page on Facebook detailing how to block some of Facebook's functionality ... then maybe you chose the wrong platform to do this one?

Facebook doesn't owe you your business, but superficially (and possibly incorrectly) it seems like Facebook might be annoyed you're using their system to bypass/alter some of the elements of Facebook.

Facebook can't say a damned thing if you host this elsewhere -- but isn't this is kind of like expecting Microsoft to host articles detailing how to pirate Microsoft products?

Welcome to the world of Terms of Service and EULAs, where the people who own the service can and will make any changes they want and you don't get a vote.

Re:Hmmmm .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830707)

Well you agreed that they could change the Terms of Service without notifying you, so the fault is on you for using their service. If you're an adult and need the government as a baby-sitter for your agreements, maybe you should commit yourself to a center for the mentally challenged.

What a shocker (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 7 months ago | (#44830131)

Who could have seen this as the outcome of standing in the crosshairs of corporate power while flipping the double deuce?

A bit slow, maybe...? (0)

DogDude (805747) | about 7 months ago | (#44830143)

Not to be intentionally mean, but I'm thinking that this guy isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. The title of the page linked to in the article, and the text he repeats several times on said page is: "Be Warned: You Are At The Mercy Of Facebook".

What kind of non-mentally challenged adult doesn't understand this already? This guy built a building on somebody else's property, and was shocked when the owners of said property took it down.

If only there was some way of not using Facebook.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830155)

nt

Chromebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830181)

Considering their styling has been totally F'd on the chromebook for weeks, they are looking pretty bush league against the social fixer. No one likes that!

Only fools trust or use Facebook, period. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830185)

That's all you need to know to make the decision
on whether to use Facebook.

Near the end of the cycle for Facebook (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 7 months ago | (#44830191)

The Social Network Website Cycle:
1. New social network site (SNS) starts, targeting a very small group of individuals. It's small, it's clean, it's easy to use, it helps people stay in touch with their friends, so a significant percentage of that target group joins up.
2. SNS targets a bunch of other similar groups, and the site starts growing.
3. SNS targets progressively wider groups until it's now millions of users.
4. Now, it opens itself to the public.
5. Once the user base is sufficiently large, it sells out, either via an IPO or a private sale.
6. The people who just bought it try to "monetize" those users by selling them advertising, related apps, etc.
7. Eventually, the users start getting fed up because the ads are too intrusive, the related apps are expensive and not useful or fun, and of course the SNS is taking people's personal information for their own use.
8. A new SNS starts with some small target audience to rectify the bloated annoyance of the dominant SNS, and the cycle begins again.

We've been through this a couple of times, already, and Facebook is somewhere around step 7. They'd like to stay in stages 6-7 for as long as possible.

Re:Near the end of the cycle for Facebook (2)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 7 months ago | (#44830433)

its a shame, but i think your wrong about this when it comes to FB...

remember, a huge part of the userbase is older professionals who, frankly, have no interest in changing their SN provider *unless* they do something totally outrageous (like charging a monthly fee) or something so much better is developed (unlikely) and everyone they know jumps ship.

yes i agree young users will soon start fleeing FB (aren't they already?) because, well young people don't want to use mom n dads SN.

Re:Near the end of the cycle for Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830647)

I agree. However, Facebook is definitely on step 7 with Google+ set to overtake Facebook by next year.

The major sites in order that have followed this trend are:

1. Friendster (came and went)
2. Myspace (came and went)
3. Facebook (came and dying..600 million users and dwindling from a high of 900 million)
4. Google+ (growing by 10's of millions a month..400 million active users and growing)
5. ??

Re:Near the end of the cycle for Facebook (2)

Sandman1971 (516283) | about 7 months ago | (#44831173)

People said the same when Google came along. It won't be long until it dies and something better comes along.

Yahoo, Alta Vista, Google, they were just part of a cycle. Another search engine will come along to supplant the dominance. The life cycle for a websearch engine was about 3 years back then. How long has Google reigned supreme?

Things aren't like they used to be. These types of things tend to either die out fairly quickly, or stick around for many years. I don't think Facebook is in a situation where they'll die off any time soon.

It pretty clearly violates the TOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830225)

From his own FAQ [socialfixer.com] :

Q: Can Social Fixer hide the Sponsored ads?
A: Yes, just click on the "X" in the upper right of the box, and all boxes with the same title will be hidden every time you load a page.

If your product interferes with Facebook's revenue stream, don't try hosting it on Facebook. Zucko's done some creepy things with that site but shutting down this project is hardly surprising.

Wait ... What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830359)

You mean allowing business to operate without any restrictions on their behavior might actually be bad for business as a whole? Ludwig von Mises is turning over in his grave.

I have never understood... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830363)

why people trust sites not under their direct control. Facebook is evil, pure and simple. It's a hub of narcissistic people looking for validation and shallow communications. Want to stay in touch with people? Call them, so they can hear your voice. Go visit them in person. Email your photos and keep them away from the prying eyes of the capitalist and monetization ad evil.

Monopoly on social interaction (1, Insightful)

sinij (911942) | about 7 months ago | (#44830483)

We, or a lot of us, are reasonably weary of the government overreach into our personal lives. There are checks and balances in place that over long run designed to keep government from intruding too much into our lives. We could never reduce it to zero, it is necessary evil, but we can and should pragmatically minimize it.
 
  There is no such measures for private corporations, like Facebook, that if happen to monopolize social interaction can become worse dictators than any government. Just imagine how 'freedom of speech' would work, if speaking was not natural but instead enabled by Speech Inc that could stop selling it you on a whim? This is why Internet Neutrality is so important, but we dropped the ball on Social Neutrality and will have to fight an uphill battle.
 
  I think way forward is to deem some services 'essential'. Yes, I shudder at the idea of declaring Facebook essential (I chose not to use it) but for many people it is.

Re:Monopoly on social interaction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830655)

If people are stupid enough to consider facebook essential to their lives, well maybe they deserve what they get. What's next? Declaring alcohol essential for alcoholics?

Re:Monopoly on social interaction (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830903)

But the thing is, they don't have a monopoly on social interaction..

There is *nothing* preventing you from creating your own social site tomorrow and trying to lure people into subscribing to it.

If the law were rewritten so that Facebook is the only social platform one can use on the Internet... then you'd have something, maybe.

Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830605)

If you have a problem with facebook, well don't use it, I know I don't. And before you start talking about loosing jobs by not having facebook, perhaps you should grow a real social life, I've never even known anyone that lost anything by refusing to use facebook (or other social networks).

Re:Idiots (1)

Valdrax (32670) | about 7 months ago | (#44831061)

I've never even known anyone that lost anything by refusing to use facebook (or other social networks).

Well, you wouldn't, would you? That's the peril of abstaining from a communications technology.

I miss out on stuff all the time because I refuse to use social media; sometimes my friends remember to tell me individually, and sometimes they forget. I don't really have any right to demand that they make extra special care to communicate to me when their preferred means of communication gets the rest of us; it's me that's the odd one sticking out. It's nice when they think of me and let me know, but it's not some great social snub that they don't walk across the room to speak to the guy standing alone in the corner. I'm the one who opted into that.

User experience? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830779)

The extension was obviously altering the user experience by Facebook. They make their money based on that user experience so you had it coming.

Interesting plugin...anything similar for Gmail? (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | about 7 months ago | (#44830789)

I know this is way off topic, but does anyone know of a similar plugin for Gmail? One that maybe rolls back some of the stupider 'improvements' they've made to their interface?

Specifically, something that will axe the awkward and idiotized new 'compose' and 'reply' interfaces, rolling them back a version? Oh, and restoring a one-click logout option would be sweet, too :) I understand why they hid the logout button way back when, since they definitely have a vested interest in people not logging out...ever...but it's just one more annoyance in the pot.

Oh, and while we're talking UI modifications, I wouldn't say no to the ability to sort by columns in the webclient, something that Froogle has never offered...I'm just sayin' :) Oh yeah, and being able to see the size of emails (especially ones with attachments, obviously) would be a sweet bonus.

I know, I know, I can get all this in an offline client, but the three things I do like about Gmail is 1) it's portability, 2) tags instead of folders, and 3) conversation view. The conversation view could be replicated in an offline client, but I haven't yet found one that supports tags instead of folders, and of course any offline client is by definition not portable unless you carry it around on a thumb drive with you...then just hope you have a USB port available on the right platform to plug it into...

It was about time (1)

anasciiman (528060) | about 7 months ago | (#44830875)

When Facebook did this very same thing to the author of Fluff Busting Purity [fbpurity.com] , the author of Social Fixer pooh-poohed him for violating Facebook's ToS. This here is Karma coming home to roost. And it's about time. Equitability must be maintained.

Warn against working for free! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44830917)

I warn you against working for free for a big corporation - what was this guy thinking!? Why would he pour all these unpaid hours into making a service more valuable for a big corporation? Really not smart.

They are probably still offended (1)

Fosterocalypse (2650263) | about 7 months ago | (#44830925)

That he didn't take the job offer they gave him. They wanted him to work for them and he opted to stay where he was at with the job he was happy with and not uproot his family. At the end of the day FB is a business and they are going to do whatever they want or need to to keep the revenue stream growing. http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/08/meet-matt-kruse-the-man-making-facebook-better/ [arstechnica.com]

This happened to our business too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44831153)

We had over 3,000 likes and our website was growing at a pretty good clip. Then one day without explanation they shut our page down and say it cannot be restored. We've appealed the decision numerous times only to be denied without explanation. I am absolutely clueless what we did to cause this but I will never again invest a dime in anything to do with Facebook.

Backups (1)

cbreak (1575875) | about 7 months ago | (#44831183)

'It's gone. Years of work and almost 340,000 fans, wiped out. Erased.'

He should really have made backups if his work is so valuable to him. Cloud storage might be in these days, but putting all eggs into the same basket is risky either way.

Thankful for FBs action (2)

Wokan (14062) | about 7 months ago | (#44831217)

I wouldn't have heard of this extension if FB hadn't done something to annoy this guy. I installed it this morning and tried it out. I like it. It does give me options Facebook doesn't offer and that I didn't even know I was missing. It probably won't be for everybody. Their overlay is well done, but is slightly different from FB's styles. That's probably a good thing. I'll be more likely to know where problems are coming from if I have any.

It's not all that different from using Greasemonkey scripts to fix sites, just with Facebook APIs thrown into the mix.

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...