I'm a fan of WidgetBlock, a chrome extension that simply blocks all major offsite social networking widgets, whether its facebook like buttons, tweet this buttons, the facebook connect thing, etc.
It's stated reason for doing this is to improve page load times, which it certainly does, but it does just as well to protect your privacy.
I'm all for a transparency and control, but this has to be more effortless--a side-effect of something users would be happy to do anyway--especially for the average user if it is to be successful. I believe a social media aggregator can position themselves to do this. Facebook knows certain things about me, Twitter others, Google others, etc. What I surf online isn't always indicative of my true interests.
Hmmm... it would be good to know how all these compare - I'm running disconnect: http://www.disconnectere.com/ and ghostery. Now someone is suggesting WidgetBlock. To me Ghostery seems to block more than disconnect - but I don't know how they work "under the hood". It seems silly to run 3 or 4 separate plugins for the same purpose!
Right, and Ghostery detects and blocks FB connect, as well as Google Analytics, AdSense and many other services. Very useful extension. Could be more intuitive though, it took me a few minutes to get the blocking right.
I agree, though to be fair, facebook isn't the only site where third parties have tried to fix privacy issues.
I read once that you know you've really made it when an eco-system grows around your product or service. The same can be said here: you know your product or service sucks if unpaid developers feel compelled to try and fix it.
Be careful. Disconnect also ends up blocking core services, like Google Channel API, used by some App Engine apps (this took me hours to figure out why my site was broken in Chrome).
There's a lot going on to block Facebook these days. I'm not happy with it either, but can somebody please give me an insight why so many people are pissed of it right now?
I have an online and an offline life. FB is associated with my offline life, my real life. I don't want what I do online associated with my real life, and being forced to sign up through facebook before I've even tested what you're trying to sell me is a real no-no.
As I said elsewhere. The day I'm forced to authenticate through Facebook is the day there'll be a pseudonym account set up for me.
right now it's the commenting system. Before that it was general backlash and before that it was the like-button-everywhere shitstorm that also spawned diaspora.
Don't worry. In at most one month's time nobody will remember this and Facebook will be awesome again.
Until it's time again to fish for pageviews at which point another flaming article will be published somewhere and everyone will repost it in their own words in order to get pageviews.
You can't expect consistency in a society with a cumulative attention span of about a week.
> Don't worry. In at most one month's time nobody will remember this and Facebook will be awesome again.
Facebook stopped being awesome a long time ago. I doubt it ever will be again. You're making it out to be a victim of some kind and it's not. If facebook didn't repeatedly abuse its users' trust and privacy, there'd be no backlash. There'd be no 'flaming' articles and no shitstorms.
> Until it's time again to fish for pageviews at which point another flaming article will be published somewhere and everyone will repost it in their own words in order to get pageviews.
Perhaps so, but the extension isn't a result of a flaming article. It has over 100,000 users and 4000+ weekly installs.
> You're making it out to be a victim of some kind and it's not.
I'm not. I'm just surprised about how quickly the opinions seem to change. I made up my mind once facebook was basically allowing third-party websites I accidentally visit to post stuff in my name ("like"-buttons) and decided to stop using facebook right then. No need to rationalize or post articles.
It's just amazing how the pendulum swung back and forth over the last two years between an overall positive mood and an overall negative one.
Uh, no. I deleted my account almost a year ago and have no plans to reconstitute it. I am more than happy to block Facebook and any other, similar, digital tentacles of intrusions into privacy.
On Facebook, 'you' are the product. I like to use their website, but all of the integration is not necessary and frankly annoying.
I will continue to use Facebook, and continue to block their integration with other websites. Maybe if I am compensated by Facebook for being their 'product' I will change my ways. Until then, I win.
So this is just a version of Disconnect that only blocks facebook? Does Disconnet do all this anyway? I discovered at the weekend that Disconnect blocks results on a Google custom search I made where analytics is running also. Seems a little overzealous.
So much of public messaging around privacy seems to make light of people's concerns around it. I believe this is deliberate social conditioning. Some of your friends end up picking up on the verbiage and soon you are surrounded. "Awww come on, it's harmless."
Never give out enough information for someone to clone you online.
This only pertains to ads and malware, but I use Ad Muncher on Windows, which is a paid program (with a month-long trial). I use it, because I can't be bothered to set up countermeasures, every time I use a new installation. And it works in all browsers (obviously) - and outside browsers.
Cons:
* Whitelisting is a hassle: I still haven't figured it out, which means that good ad networks like Yoggrt, Fusion Ads, and Deck Network are blocked.
* Blacklisting is also a hassle. You'd think they would support a widget filter - or a good import feature, but alas.
Similar functionality can be achieved in Firefox using one of its settings. From the privacy tab of the Preferences Dialog (Options in Windows), choose "custom setting for History" and disable third-party cookies.
39 comments
[ 159 ms ] story [ 1410 ms ] threadIt's stated reason for doing this is to improve page load times, which it certainly does, but it does just as well to protect your privacy.
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/hgiihiookhijpbha...
EDIT: It appears to work nicely in tandem with this ghostery thing.
I'm all for a transparency and control, but this has to be more effortless--a side-effect of something users would be happy to do anyway--especially for the average user if it is to be successful. I believe a social media aggregator can position themselves to do this. Facebook knows certain things about me, Twitter others, Google others, etc. What I surf online isn't always indicative of my true interests.
Why not put it as an option in my maze on the settings page?
I read once that you know you've really made it when an eco-system grows around your product or service. The same can be said here: you know your product or service sucks if unpaid developers feel compelled to try and fix it.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/jeoacafpbcihiomhla...
A bit aggressive imho, with the google block enabled you can't even login to google.
That says a lot right away.
As I said elsewhere. The day I'm forced to authenticate through Facebook is the day there'll be a pseudonym account set up for me.
Don't worry. In at most one month's time nobody will remember this and Facebook will be awesome again.
Until it's time again to fish for pageviews at which point another flaming article will be published somewhere and everyone will repost it in their own words in order to get pageviews.
You can't expect consistency in a society with a cumulative attention span of about a week.
Facebook stopped being awesome a long time ago. I doubt it ever will be again. You're making it out to be a victim of some kind and it's not. If facebook didn't repeatedly abuse its users' trust and privacy, there'd be no backlash. There'd be no 'flaming' articles and no shitstorms.
> Until it's time again to fish for pageviews at which point another flaming article will be published somewhere and everyone will repost it in their own words in order to get pageviews.
Perhaps so, but the extension isn't a result of a flaming article. It has over 100,000 users and 4000+ weekly installs.
I'm not. I'm just surprised about how quickly the opinions seem to change. I made up my mind once facebook was basically allowing third-party websites I accidentally visit to post stuff in my name ("like"-buttons) and decided to stop using facebook right then. No need to rationalize or post articles.
It's just amazing how the pendulum swung back and forth over the last two years between an overall positive mood and an overall negative one.
I will continue to use Facebook, and continue to block their integration with other websites. Maybe if I am compensated by Facebook for being their 'product' I will change my ways. Until then, I win.
Never give out enough information for someone to clone you online.
I tried Multifox ( http://br.mozdev.org/multifox/ ), but for some reason I concluded it wasn't a good solution. Can't remember why though.
Cons: * Whitelisting is a hassle: I still haven't figured it out, which means that good ad networks like Yoggrt, Fusion Ads, and Deck Network are blocked. * Blacklisting is also a hassle. You'd think they would support a widget filter - or a good import feature, but alas.
It's the best desktop client I know, though.
http://admuncher.com.
Similar functionality can be achieved in Firefox using one of its settings. From the privacy tab of the Preferences Dialog (Options in Windows), choose "custom setting for History" and disable third-party cookies.
Another method is to use an addon called Facebook Blocker: http://webgraph.com/resources/facebookblocker/ (haven't tested).
Some other methods are suggested here: http://superuser.com/questions/220696/how-can-i-block-all-fa...