Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Tracks the Status Updates and Messages You Don't Write Too

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the let's-have-a-look-at-what-you-have-there dept.

Facebook 163

Jah-Wren Ryel writes "It turns out Facebook tracks the stuff that people type and then erase before hitting the post button. If you start writing a message, and then think better of it and decide not to post it, Facebook still adds it to the dossier they keep on you. From the article: 'Storing text as you type isn't uncommon on other websites. For example, if you use Gmail, your draft messages are automatically saved as you type them. Even if you close the browser without saving, you can usually find a (nearly) complete copy of the email you were typing in your Drafts folder. Facebook is using essentially the same technology here. The difference is that Google is saving your messages to help you. Facebook users don't expect their unposted thoughts to be collected, nor do they benefit from it.'"

cancel ×

163 comments

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

Tracking Comment: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45703865)

peas porridge hot
peas porridge cold
peas porridge in the butt
nine days old

some like it hot
some like it cold
some like it in the butt
nine days old

Do they turn up in the downloads? (5, Interesting)

rvw (755107) | about 9 months ago | (#45703869)

Facebook has an option to download all your data. Do these texts turn up in these downloads as well? If not Facebook violates EU law.

Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45703983)

Don't find this in my data download.

Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? (4, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 9 months ago | (#45705229)

Which makes sense because they were never stored.

The source article that the linked article refers to says that Facebook records the fact that you entered text but never posted it. It does not record the text.

But after three levels of "telephone", we have this thread.

Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45705553)

not true. There was an article I read some time ago that showed an actual dump of a users activity used in an actual court trial. All of the partial stuff was there. It showed time stamps, every time the person hit backspace a bit and paused to think of which word, or even word ending, it was allllll there... in creepy ass detail.

Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704029)

If not Facebook violates EU law.

So what? It should be pretty clear that Facebook isn't run by moral people by now. You can pretty much assume that they violates every damn law they think they can get away with.
When you deal with the local thugs they generally have some sense of morality, large corporations, not so much.

Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704265)

So let's make a big deal so they can be spanked already.

local thugs...generally have some sense of morality

I don't know where you live but there's definitely no sense of morality from my local PD.

Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704293)

If not Facebook violates EU law.

So what? It should be pretty clear that Facebook isn't run by moral people by now. You can pretty much assume that they violates every damn law they think they can get away with.
When you deal with the local thugs they generally have some sense of morality, large corporations, not so much.

What makes you thing it ever was run by moral people?

Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704801)

What makes you thing it ever was run by moral people?

What makes you think that he thinks it was ever run by moral people?

It should be pretty clear that Facebook isn't run by moral people by now.

Rephrased: "By now, it should be pretty clear that Facebook isn't run by moral people."

Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704177)

Where is that option?

Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? (4, Informative)

parkinglot777 (2563877) | about 9 months ago | (#45704215)

Update, Dec. 16, 2013: This article was updated to clarify that it is the browser code, not Facebook, that reads whatever you type.

From TFA above, it said that the data first collected is not directly from Facebook but from the client's browser. In other words, Facebook is taking advantage of browser's insight (data).

Other information we receive about you
We also receive other types of information about you:
* We receive data about you whenever you use or are running Facebook, such as when you look at another person's timeline, send or receive a message, search for a friend or a Page, click on, view or otherwise interact with things, use a Facebook mobile app, or make purchases through Facebook.
* When you post things like photos or videos on Facebook, we may receive additional related data (or metadata), such as the time, date, and place you took the photo or video.
* We receive data from or about the computer, mobile phone, or other devices you use to install Facebook apps or to access Facebook, including when multiple users log in from the same device. This may include network and communication information, such as your IP address or mobile phone number, and other information about things like your internet service, operating system, location, the type (including identifiers) of the device or browser you use, or the pages you visit. For example, we may get your GPS or other location information so we can tell you if any of your friends are nearby, or we could request device information to improve how our apps work on your device.
* We receive data whenever you visit a game, application, or website that uses Facebook Platform or visit a site with a Facebook feature (such as a social plugin), sometimes through cookies. This may include the date and time you visit the site; the web address, or URL, you're on; technical information about the IP address, browser and the operating system you use; and, if you are logged in to Facebook, your User ID.
* Sometimes we get data from our affiliates or our advertising partners, customers and other third parties that helps us (or them) deliver ads, understand online activity, and generally make Facebook better. For example, an advertiser may tell us information about you (like how you responded to an ad on Facebook or on another site) in order to measure the effectiveness of - and improve the quality of - ads.
(source: https://www.facebook.com/full_data_use_policy [facebook.com] )

From the quote above (from their web site), it pretty much covers the 'download all your data' part in a vaguely wording way (bulletin #1). I guess someone has to sue Facebook to see if their policies actually cover the way they are doing now.

Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? (2)

jamiedolan (1743242) | about 9 months ago | (#45704539)

I just typed: livegoatseatchickenincanada, (into a status update box and into a comment box, but did not submit either one, I allowed it to sit for at least 30 seconds before leaving the page, more than enough time to send / save that text) a phrase which should be unique in my facebook archie. I've requested a copy of my archive be created / sent to me, I'll update this once I get a copy of my archive and search it for said text.

Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45705561)

Or, just wait 'til your ads start showing results for "live goatse @ chicken.ca." Or, your friends and family get "jamiedolan likes `live goatse'" messages.

Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? (4, Interesting)

bmimatt (1021295) | about 9 months ago | (#45705599)

There's a Firefox plugin called 'Firebug'. It let's you see HTTP requests and responses. You could use that to see if what you type is sent immediately to FB.

Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? (3, Informative)

arisvega (1414195) | about 9 months ago | (#45705089)

Facebook has an option to download all your data. Do these texts turn up in these downloads as well?

You know they don't. Who you search for, your browsing habits and clicks, none of that turns up either.

I do not know what purpose this 'download all your data' option serves, but it is certainly not there to give you the option to actually download all data facebook has on you: it is something ridiculous like your name, your birthday and a couple of other useless stuff. It does not even include the messages you have sent and received.

Time to switch gears (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45703871)

I can see myself following a policy of "never type directly into a web browser, only copy and paste" in the near future. (And here's yet another reason to avoid "cloud" services and prefer local storage for anything personal.)

Re:Time to switch gears (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704025)

Save yourself the trouble and just disable JavaScript

Re:Time to switch gears (3, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about 9 months ago | (#45704825)

That's about on par with the suggestion that people can save a lot of money on gasoline by walking to work or cycling.

My point being that the recommendation carries with it a set of disadvantages that heavily weigh against it when it comes to convenience. Much of the modern web today is not usable in any practical sense without javascript. If you can manage without it, that's nice... have a cookie. Just because you only visit websites that only present archaic interfaces doesn't mean everybody else does.

Re:Time to switch gears (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45705331)

No shit. There is so many problem caused by JS it's not even funny. The web is just better with partial JS anyway. Noscript just rules, everything loads faster and it's safer.

Re:Time to switch gears (1)

edsonmedina (134008) | about 9 months ago | (#45704045)

I can see myself following a policy of "never type directly into a web browser, only copy and paste"

And then you find out your favorite editor is also storing your unsaved docs

Re:Time to switch gears (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704107)

Somehow I just can't picture vim phoning home like a proprietary software product.

Re:Time to switch gears (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704213)

Somehow I just can't picture vim phoning home like a proprietary software product.

Oh yeah? Well, emacs doesn't phone home better, and hasn't been doing it longer!

Re:Time to switch gears (4, Funny)

chromas (1085949) | about 9 months ago | (#45704305)

Well, that's probably the one function emacs doesn't have.

Re:Time to switch gears (2)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about 9 months ago | (#45704589)

Expect to see a plugin to helpfully upload your data to the cloud next Thursday.

Re:Time to switch gears (4, Funny)

gman003 (1693318) | about 9 months ago | (#45705439)

Just for those who haven't memorized all the keybinds, "don't phone home" is c-m-X c-] by default.

Re:Time to switch gears (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704475)

ET phones home.

Re:Time to switch gears (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45705477)

ed [wikipedia.org] phones home.

FTFY

Re:Time to switch gears (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704061)

I sometimes find myself doing this anyway just for the better text formatting and spell-checking available outside the browser.
And also for those times when writing a large message just to have the site go "ERROR: TIMEOUT!" and eat your message.

Re:Time to switch gears (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 9 months ago | (#45704769)

One of the sites I visit is known for timing out. I'm always seeing someone post "WTF, I just lost a 20 page post", following by a dozen people saying "Write it in Word/Notepad next time".

Web browser plugin? (1)

schneidafunk (795759) | about 9 months ago | (#45704251)

Sounds like a great concept for a browser plugin.

Re:Web browser plugin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704291)

It already exists and it's called It's All Text!

Re:Web browser plugin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704361)

Came here to say this, but you beat me to it. :)

Pity it doesn't work with some custom input fields, though (Gmail comes to mind), as it looks for the element. Also, I believe it's Firefox-only.

Re:Web browser plugin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704385)

Oops, I forgot that slashdot eats html tags. The <textarea> element.

Re:Web browser plugin? (1)

alex67500 (1609333) | about 9 months ago | (#45704999)

Came here to say this, but you beat me to it. :)

Pity it doesn't work with some custom input fields, though (Gmail comes to mind), as it looks for the element. Also, I believe it's Firefox-only.

If you use Chrome you're sending your data to your google account all the time anyway...

Probably best to go back to using Lynx ;-)

Re:Time to switch gears (1)

AG the other (1169501) | about 9 months ago | (#45704403)

It occurs to me, in view of Snowden's revelations and the presumption that anything that Facebook knows the NSA also knows, that we as a community could completely overload the NSA by daily opening a page and typing words like bomb, hack, DNS attack and poison into a post and then closing it.

Re: Time to switch gears (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704563)

I disagree. If you type something in and then decide not to post it, it is evidence that a) you are ambivalent, b) that you have more sense to say everything you think of c) the limits to which you can be trusted.

Countries that include thoughtcrime still don't last very long, because those two rungs down the power ladder are under so much stress.

Aside from that, if you write, then erase, that Darth Vader's nephew is seriously guilty of treason, then the Galactic Oversight Agency gets a heads up that it is already common knowledge, and maybe tells him, tone it down.

Anyhow, from your lips to the GSA's ear.

Re: Time to switch gears (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 9 months ago | (#45704915)

... Darth Vader's nephew.... ???

... must resist ... temptation to nerdrage.

Re:Time to switch gears (1)

Arker (91948) | about 9 months ago | (#45704839)

Some sort of a traitorous browser is required here and I think I would try to close that hole first.

Re:Time to switch gears (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704887)

Who the bleep ever thought it was a good idea to permit this behaviour in browsers, anyway? If I want to send data and/or request new data from the server, I'll click something. The browser is meant to serve me in this, not betray me.

Message saving (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45703887)

"The difference is that Google is saving your messages to help you."

Well, we hope at least. When Google's robot army kicks down my door for looking up subversive material, will we still be saying this?

I bet this is a part truth (4, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 9 months ago | (#45703963)

"The difference is that Google is saving your messages to help you."

Well, we hope at least. When Google's robot army kicks down my door for looking up subversive material, will we still be saying this?

Obviously drafts do help you ... but I wouldn't mind betting they also analyse the data and use it to predict your preferences in exactly the same way that Facebook does!

Re:Message saving (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 9 months ago | (#45704031)

You should be more careful. When you realize Skynet actually evovled from google sometime before causing the dot com bust you will want the robots to be friendly to you.
 

Thought process (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45703889)

Capturing a person's though process has a lot of value, sometimes more than the actual post written.

Think of brand recognition, for a simple example. I like Pep... oops, I mean, Coke.

Re:Thought process (5, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 9 months ago | (#45703993)

Capturing a person's though process has a lot of value, sometimes more than the actual post written. Think of brand recognition, for a simple example. I like Pep... oops, I mean, Coke.

And that is quite harmless. Its if writing a draft "dear mum and dad I'd like to telly you I'm gay. I know its against your religious beliefs", then deleting it will result in adverts for gay support groups, or anything else that could give someone an idea of what might not have been said that there is a problem.

Targetted ads (1)

phorm (591458) | about 9 months ago | (#45705239)

Will ads for gay support groups out you? There are plenty of other things that set this stuff off.
Various pro-sports forums (wrestling in particular) tend to complain when they start getting gay dating ads, which is rather amusing since they're all contextual based on the content of the posts in th eforum...

Can we just call it... (5, Funny)

Akratist (1080775) | about 9 months ago | (#45703891)

..."Stasibook" and be done with it?

Re:Can we just call it... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704409)

Stop writing half your post in the subject. It is not clever and it only makes your post unreadable.

Re:Can we just call it... (1)

Akratist (1080775) | about 9 months ago | (#45704481)

Okay, sorry. I'll stop doing that in the future.

That is just... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704721)

Weak sauce. I started fixing it in the past. When the temporal wave hits this will fix itself.

Re:Can we just call it... (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | about 9 months ago | (#45705251)

Okay, sorry. I'll stop doing that in the future.

That's right. Much better to write out your post, then discard it and let the AC's try to find the auto-stored version!

Seriously, though, don't worry about it. If that AC is too lazy to read subject lines, let them suffer in their own stew of self-imposed ignorance. Your original post was quite readable...and quite on point, I might add. :)

Hmm. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45703953)

Must kill Zuckerberg, Must kill Zuckerberg, Must kill ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
Must post cat video.

Facebook doesn't store this stuff. (5, Informative)

MarsLander (742092) | about 9 months ago | (#45703977)

FTFA: "In their article, Das and Kramer claim to only send back information to Facebook that indicates whether you self-censored, not what you typed. The Facebook rep I spoke with agreed that the company isn’t collecting the text of self-censored posts."

Re:Facebook doesn't store this stuff. (5, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | about 9 months ago | (#45704155)

I guess Slashdot accidentally stored a hilariously inaccurate version of the summary.

Re:Facebook doesn't store this stuff. (3, Funny)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 9 months ago | (#45704565)

Oh, phew! I was afraid

I wanna fuck fuck fuck Taylor and Selena and ruck them and lick their swetty boddies.

Post? Nah

was still in there somewhere. I'd be so embarrassed over the misspellings.

Re:Facebook doesn't store this stuff. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704441)

The Facebook rep I spoke with agreed that the company isn’t collecting the text of self-censored posts."

How refreshingly ambiguous! Did the rep agree on the definition of "self-censored"? Did the rep specifically agree that Facebook isn't collecting the text that you type in a box on their page and then delete? I bet they didn't. Facebook is probably collecting the text that you typed and erased and the summary is accurate.

Re:Facebook doesn't store this stuff. (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 9 months ago | (#45705201)

Slashdot never lets basic facts get in the way of a good bitch-fest.

Facebook is for dumb fucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45703987)

Ipse dixit

Chrome (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704013)

Chrome tracks everything you type in the address bar. They call it the omni bar, since this feature allows you to search right from the address bar, and get instant results as you type. It is still creepy that the save this data for several weeks, and then keep an "anonymized" version permanently.

Ironically, Canonical seems to get the most flack over this on Slashdot, not because they save any data (they don't), but because they send data to companies like facebook and google, which are the real problem.

Thankfully, this is slashdot, so a sensible discussion on how to practically exist on the internet using all its features while maintaining one's privacy will take place.

Only difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704059)

"The difference is that Google is saving your messages to help you."

Wrong, that's not the only difference. One other difference is that most email clients (and services) do it, and put that together with the fact that gmail tells you that it is doing it (so as other email clients and email services) makes it like a "normal" feature, expected even. And even another difference, is that with gmail I CAN access that draft after and either remove it or end the mail I was writing and get done with... in facebook I can do no such thing (and if it wasn't for this "news", people wouldn't even know such data existed or facebook was doing it).

So, several differences now.. Do you know what's called something that has so many differences from each other? Not similar at all (or comparable). So yeah, nice try to make it more "trivial" than it should be.

Time for an addon... (2)

jonr (1130) | about 9 months ago | (#45704067)

Time to create firefox/chrome add-on that types and then deletes all kinds of bullshit...

Re:Time for an addon... (4, Insightful)

G-forze (1169271) | about 9 months ago | (#45704121)

Exactly my thoughts. This seems to be a good case for "poisoning the well", by using some simple Selenium script and a couple of e-books, for instance. Have the bot post random text snippets from the books to all kinds of people, events and pages, and then delete before sending. Make this data collection useless.

Re:Time for an addon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704195)

Feel like making one ?

Re:Time for an addon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704827)

Use this to type in a book one sentence at a time. Then turn them in for copyright infringement.

Re:Time for an addon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45705159)

Hint: Use a CC licenced ebook.

Re:Time for an addon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704241)

Yes

No kidding. (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 9 months ago | (#45704085)

Facebook has become difficult to even type in the status box, because they're trying so hard to fill in suggestions and the like that the cursor jumps around. Half the time it jumbles up characters, likely because there's a crap-ton on javascript running with every keystroke.

So everybody should periodically type "Mark Zuckerberg is a douchebag" and delete it. ;-)

What..why? (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 9 months ago | (#45704669)

If you're going to go to the effort of typing something as insightful as "Mark Zuckerberg is a douchebag" I say go ahead and post it. What's he going to do, de-friend you?

Re:No kidding. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704685)

So everybody should periodically type "Mark Zuckerberg is a douchebag" and delete it. ;-)

Oh damn. No one told me about the second step! I been doing it wrong for so long :(

Facebook? Still? (4, Interesting)

macbeth66 (204889) | about 9 months ago | (#45704087)

Social Media was so 2013.

Get with it, its all about meeting up with people in real-time. Awesome. You make a call, talk to a person and arrange to meet up somewhere. Say for dinner or a drink. Maybe even a hook-up.

Re:Facebook? Still? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704255)

But I'm too fat to climb the stairs from my Moms basement.

Re:Facebook? Still? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704257)

I've gone back to writing letters. I'm forced to think carefully about what I'm going to write, and how I will say it. Furthermore, no-one will see what I wrote to my friend in a Google search 20 years from now.

Re:Facebook? Still? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704841)

Not in Google, but I am sure it will be in an NSA archive.

Re:Facebook? Still? (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 9 months ago | (#45704443)

Social Media was so 2013.

Get with it, its all about meeting up with people in real-time. Awesome. You make a call, talk to a person and arrange to meet up somewhere. Say for dinner or a drink. Maybe even a hook-up.

Ok .. I have friends and family on 4 continents, spread across numerous timezones. Can you please suggest how I am supposed to meet up with them all in real time, and in a timely manner, and without having to be independent wealthy?

Re:Facebook? Still? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704471)

He also suggests you might want to bang your mom.

Re:Facebook? Still? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704745)

Mumble

Re:Facebook? Still? (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 9 months ago | (#45704833)

IRC.

Re:Facebook? Still? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704865)

I hear the computery folks have invented this thing called "electronic mail," which will let you send messages anywhere in the world without paying for airmail delivery (and fast, too)! They also made this thing called the "world wide web," where you can post things about yourself with special hypertext, and even pictures! You can even "instant message" family, with a live video feed (like seeing them on the television)! Thanks to the marvels of technology, one can communicate in real time with people all over the planet, without ceding control of every communication to advertizing/surveillance megacorporations.

Re:Facebook? Still? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45705539)

pick what's more important, family or a job. Sorry for the assholeish realism.

Re:Facebook? Still? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 9 months ago | (#45705057)

Meh...there's already an app for that.

Re:Facebook? Still? (1)

Minwee (522556) | about 9 months ago | (#45705183)

Social Media was so 2013.

Real hipsters only communicate by fax anyway.

Re:Facebook? Still? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45705509)

Shhh, don't let the common squares know! I guess I'd better start brushing up on my telegraphy, so I'm not still faxing when all the wannabe posers show up STOP

Re:Facebook? Still? (1)

fredrated (639554) | about 9 months ago | (#45705359)

That's awesome, when did you think it up?

Oxyomoronic (1)

trifish (826353) | about 9 months ago | (#45704097)

Using facebook in any way + caring about your privacy
= mutually exclusive.

Re:Oxyomoronic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704129)

Oxyo-moronic? Ah yes: Billy Mays yelling at you to be quiet about Oxy-Clean. That is kind of oxymoronic.

Re:Oxyomoronic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704397)

Not really.

You just have to know how to distrust them. Use a fake name, fill in garbage information, extensively use blockers, and run Facebook as the only thing you use a browser for and clean out cookies.

Facebook has its uses, but one should not be overly trusting of them.

Um...that's the whole idea? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 9 months ago | (#45704701)

Facebook is all about your public persona - your "brand" if you will (excuse me, I have to go wash my brain after typing that). It's exactly the opposite of privacy, and that's part of what makes it so great. I'm just lucky all of my young-and-stupid moments are only archived in old usenet threads.

Re:Um...that's the whole idea? (1)

Sporkinum (655143) | about 9 months ago | (#45704905)

Google helpfully archived those for you. There is stuff I posted back in the 90's on usenet that I thought would be long gone, that google can still find.

Sorry to say that... (1)

ExXter (1361251) | about 9 months ago | (#45704101)

but these are news from 2 years ago. /facepalm

WWWBoard (1)

johnsie (1158363) | about 9 months ago | (#45704399)

Yes, and the WWWBoard layout for the comments on this site is sooooooo 1998

Multiple sites do it (1)

koan (80826) | about 9 months ago | (#45704201)

Huffingtonpost, Facebook, and I wouldn't be surprised if they all di .

LOLROF when they criticize NSA (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 9 months ago | (#45704285)

FB and Google are far more insidious in what they collect and how they use it.

Re:LOLROF when they criticize NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45704535)

FB and Google use it to make money mostly by selling ads and are upfront about it (if you bothered to read the terms of service like you claimed you did when you signed up). NSA uses it to track, suppress, and arrest people as well as threatens people who talk about it. In what fucked up do you claim FB and Google are worse?

Re:LOLROF when they criticize NSA (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 9 months ago | (#45704733)

I'm sorry, I' missed the part where they arrest and threaten innocent people based on their actual surveillance data. Perhaps you could link to list - one which has a statistically-significant number of people; say, a list of even half the size of the people who are wrongly accused by local police in the US - of all the people they have wrongly harassed based on their investigations.

A better policy (3, Funny)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 9 months ago | (#45704313)

I don't save anything as drafts. I send them ALL!

Even the stupid ones!

Then when you sit down the NSA, they are in a poor bargaining position and say "Look, you are talking to a guy who sends stupid emails. Does my behavior suggest I have anything to hide?"

/NSA agent starts sweating ...

Measuring distrust (1)

duncanmcbryde (3465075) | about 9 months ago | (#45704373)

The actual paper this story is based off is quite interesting and worth a read (PDF) [sauvik.me] . There's some really weird beat frequencies occurring in figure 2 that make me wonder if their data is valid. From the wording of both author's and Slate's article it appears that the collection of self-censorship data was started as a research project. If a user types 5 characters into a comment box, a boolean value is sent back to facebook if they decide not to continue, so it looks like its not sending what you type. I guess it's a good metric for measuring how much you distrust a person or system if you carefully revise statements before posting. Of course, perhaps if the self censorship data is interesting enough, Facebook's policy might change...

The benefits of Facebook (1)

ZipK (1051658) | about 9 months ago | (#45704485)

Facebook users don't expect their unposted thoughts to be collected, nor do they benefit from it.

The benefits given to you by Facebook for your unposted thoughts are on par with those for your posted thoughts: more tightly targeted advertising and the opportunity to receive special offers from Facebook's partners.

The clumsy way. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 9 months ago | (#45704695)

Slashdot seems to send your stuff to the server as you type it, too. My phone has lags from half a second to 5 seconds in response time between keypress and letter appearance, while my desktop (with much faster and more reliable) does not.

Anything you type (1)

bobbutts (927504) | about 9 months ago | (#45704875)

Can and will be used against you.

NEWSFLASH! (2)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 9 months ago | (#45705097)

Facebook and other social media highly deceptive and manipulative personal information brokers who have no moral code other purpose other than their own bottom elicit, compile, memorialize and sell excruciatingly detailed and ruinous personal information dossiers to the highest bidder including but not limited to all your future employers !

Ha ha. Gotcha, sucker.

Not the actual contents (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45705119)

No they don't, that headline is very misleading and is a huge misinterpretation of the paper. For a small portion of the userbase, Facebook detect IF they self-censor and just transmit that. They only see metadata, and not the actual contents of the message. You can see that if you open the browser developer tools and watch network traffic.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>