Facebook's "Evil Interfaces" 244
An anonymous reader writes "Tim Jones over at the EFF's Deep Links Blog just posted an interesting article on the widespread use of deceptive interface techniques on the Web. He began by polling his Twitter and Facebook audience for an appropriate term for this condition and received responses like 'Bait-and-Click' and 'Zuckerpunched.' Ultimately, he chose 'Evil Interfaces' from Greg Conti's HOPE talk on malicious interface design and follow-up interview with media-savvy puppet Weena. Tim then goes on to dissect Facebook (with pictures). So, what evil interfaces have you encountered on (or off) the Web?"
Ok, honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:5, Informative)
That doesn't stop 'friends' putting information about you on their profile or tagging photos with your name.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Conduct all your debauchery in the privacy of your own home and you'll be OK.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That doesn't stop 'friends' putting information about you on their profile or tagging photos with your name.
I don't have any friends so I don't have anything to worry about. People thought I was crazy for being an anti-social loner. Now the joke is on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell your friends to stop, or use the "un-tag" feature to remove yourself. If people put stuff up that you don't like, contact them. Un-friend people who have no business posting about you, or keep them as friends so you can watch what they do. It ain't perfect, but it's not as hopeless as you make it. Best option is to only hang out with people who share your values systems, or at least respect yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Kneecapping usually does, however. As an additional bonus, they probably won't want to be your "friend" anymore.
And this is why privacy advocates lose (Score:2)
The privacy debate is already complex enough without nutters like you joining in. What the hell is a company supposed to do against someone uploading material about someone else? Ban the use of all names and photos? Demand written permission from every person mentioned, every person in any picture?
If other people publish information about you, then it is up to you to stop it, not facebook or any other company. Because that could never work short of shutting down all publishing everywhere.
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I actually deleted my facebook profile last week. But that doesn't mean they are actually going to delete my information [...]
More true than you might think.
I played around on Facebook for a few weeks just to see what it was all about but as soon as I heard about their new policies concerning member info, I closed my account. After I finished the process, however, a page popped up letting me know that all I had to do was to use my password to log back on again and everything would be back the way it was.
Apparently, "closing" a Facebook account doesn't do much.
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:5, Informative)
Try the contact: delete account page [facebook.com]. I did this a year ago and my account is as permanently gone as it can be. Although, I read that
Re: (Score:2)
Use the Facebook delete your account form. You have to sign in to use this.
http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account [facebook.com]
Facebook does not make this easy. Somebody should sue them for making people go trough this long way to delete your account.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And even if you do that, you'll never be sure they've actually deleted the data.
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't need to log in to delete an account I could write a bot to delete all of facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that mean you don't want to play Yahtzee with me? You don't want to visit my farm?
So...we're not friends, then? Oh, OK. I get the picture now.
Sigh.
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:5, Informative)
Did you unfriend everyone, delete all messages, pictures, etc?
If no, log back in (your account will likely reactivate automatically) and delete everything out of it, and then DELETE the account.
Note that "deactivation" (the acct will persist indefinitely; reactivate automatically) is different than "deletion"; prime example of an "evil interface".
If delete is truly want you seek, use the delete account link shown below.
http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account [facebook.com]
After "Deleting", do not attempt to log in for at least 2 weeks to test it's gone (I'd suggest waiting even longer, such as a month), because otherwise FB may think you're changing your mind and reactivate the account even despite choosing to delete it.
Ron
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, it's like Facebook saying "Oh, I knew you weren't serious. Please, stay, I need you, don't leave, no, don't!"
And to be extra sure, you should log back in, download all your images, make new images of random data but that match the size of the previous ones (matching hashes are a bonus), then upload these in place of the old ones, wait a day (for everything to get flushed to backups), then delete everything. This way even if they
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure anyone who would actually go to that level to get rid of their account is also so paranoid they would have never signed up. Or a "cleaner" (in the mafia sense) covering up a crime. Actually it almost sounds like a job opportunity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When you delete/modify your data, FB actually appends the new dataset to the end of their DB table and makes its "current" pointer point to that. The data actually never gets deleted. This is not an RDBMS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been using facebook for a long time now. I know all about zukerberg's questionable past and general sliminess. But tell me this, what lack privacy settings is everybody complaining about? I checked the privacy page just now and it seems I have control over everything I can think of. And the interface is pretty straight forward. Is there something I'm missing? Or are people just having a knee jerk reaction here?
This is a serious question, if there is a important privacy setting missing from facebook I want to know because I use it everyday.
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:5, Informative)
Yep, in one word, "Apps".
Furthermore, the privacy settings are not as straight forward as they seem. Case in point is Facebook's new instant personalization feature that will show one's interests to others, including the general public - see link for more details.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/195385/facebook_gets_a_little_too_personal.html [pcworld.com]
On a related note, the number of Facebook friends one has is a risk in of itself ... you may have your privacy settings locked down tight, but what about all your friends?
The more "friends", the more risk of one or more of them being "hacked" and your "private" information being leaked out as a result. Then there's the related issue of "friends of friends", which is in and of itself is seemingly innocuous, but can become a privacy threat when one of them uses the same app you and/or friend does. "Rogue" friends are another privacy hole - very easy for one or more to slip in, especially for members who already have large friend lists.
Ron
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:5, Interesting)
If you really think you understand your privacy settings on Facebook and you have not invested a significant amount of effort to do so then you've most definitely been "zuckerpunched". There are all kinds of odd things sequested away in dark corners of the settings and profile page.
My most recent was when a bunch of people I barely knew started congratulating me on my birthday. Even though I'd disabled all the ways I though that information was available. Turns out there was another setting somewhere under "Profile", I think, with a checkbox that said something like "reveal my birthday to everyone".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've been using facebook for a long time now. I know all about zukerberg's questionable past and general sliminess. But tell me this, what lack privacy settings is everybody complaining about? I checked the privacy page just now and it seems I have control over everything I can think of. And the interface is pretty straight forward. Is there something I'm missing? Or are people just having a knee jerk reaction here?
This is a serious question, if there is a important privacy setting missing from facebook I want to know because I use it everyday.
Until about a year ago, you were allowed to set your profile picture and friends list to be viewable by "friends only". Now they're completely public. Same now (starting last week) with Work History, Education History, Current City, Hometown, Likes and Interests. What's worse is that there are options in the privacy settings to make you think you're putting the information for these things in as viewable for "only friends", but it doesn't do anything, and there is hidden text on another page explaining w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its not your data any more. You published it online and lost any control you might have had over it. Sorry.
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:5, Informative)
Imagine if I signed a contract that stated I would pay $500 in rent every month. Seven months later I get a letter saying that I owed back rent despite paying my $500 every month. Would it really hold up in court that the landlords had a 'right' to change the contract without notifying their tenants? But that is exactly what Facebook is doing. It is nothing more than online bait-and-switch only worse because generally with bait and switch you know that a change is taking place before you fork over the cash.
Re: (Score:2)
The problems with your example are (1) you only fork over cash to your landlord while you pay nothing to Facebook, and (2) you agree to a term for a lease whereas neither FB nor you are obligated to continue providing nor using the service.
FB is able to create value from you personal information. They have been incrementally changing their service in order to maximize the value of this information -- and it's something you give them every time you use their service. You are free to stop using their service
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but privacy is also finite. Once lost, it can never be regained.
It's not at all like MP3s because facts can't be copyrighted. It's more like giving a friend information in confidence, only to find out he sold it to a tabloid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Information can be shared freely (which is part of the problem) but money is finite.
The fractional reserve banking system says you're wrong. Today's money IS information, and is therefore infinite (or more accurately: nonexistent).
What, did you think your employer shipped truckloads of silver bars to back those biweekly electronic deposits to your account ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because money was never limited by the supply of materials to produce it, but by the state (or in the US, the Federal Reserve). We decide that money is finite because otherwise it would be useless.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, because money was never limited by the supply of materials to produce it, but by the state (or in the US, the Federal Reserve). We decide that money is finite because otherwise it would be useless.
"Never" is incorrect. US-ians lost their right to own real money (gold) ca. 1932. Your Federal Reserve was forced down your throats at a time of widespread fiscal panic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard [wikipedia.org]
Money (value) is NOT finite! There's a whole fscking Universe out there filled with value, if we can get to it.
Small wonder that now your financial wizards on Wall St. now consider "value" nothing more than Monopoly pieces that they move around the board. That's what fiat money is; m
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Real money (value) isn't created (poof!) by the state.
Agreed. But in the current system, it isn't the state who creates money - it's banks, in the form of debt, via the mechanism of fractional reserve lending. Fractional reserve essentially creates negative value because all new money is created not just as debt, but as debt plus interest - so more money must be paid back than actually exists. Because of this, the amount of money in the system must constantly grow, regardless of the actual value of transactions occurring, or a systemic crash occurs. This disto
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now what in the world would make you think you lose your right to control something because you make it available online?
Seriously, when a book goes to the public library, does that mean the author relinquishes his rights to it? When an artist's music is sold through iTunes, does that mean he no longer can claim ownership? When a video is published on YouTube, does that mean it can never be taken dow
Re: (Score:2)
If I tell you something in this very reply, can I then prohibit you from divulging you to somewhat else?
The idea of "ownership" of information is a slippery one at best. If an author's book goes to the public library, the author can't tell the library not to loan it out. If I tell someone something, I can't prohibit them from telling others. I might be able to ask them not to, or even ask them to sign a contract saying they won't and refuse to tell them if they won't sign, but I can't actually lock it away
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure the poster was talking about data portability, not ownership. He wants to be able to export his data when he leaves (a la Google's Data Liberation Front [dataliberation.org]). There's no automated way to get your photos, blog posts, connection information, and the like out of FB.
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:4, Insightful)
The comparison still works just the same. If I decide I don't like Slashdot (or any number of other places) anymore, I can quit posting any further, but I can't remove what I already did post. And even if I could, someone may well have mirrored, copied, or reproduced it elsewhere.
The bottom line remains, never put something on the Internet that you do not want the world to know in perpetuity. Quite often, there is no way to "take it back".
I'm not even sure there should be a means to take it back. An author can't decide two years later that they regret writing a book, and demand that all copies be confiscated and burned, reviews of it be deleted and destroyed, and other records of it be erased. When you publish something in a public medium, it is part of the public record. Regret it or not, you really can't unsay something.
"Think before you speak, not after" is really not a bad lesson.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not your data any more. You published it online and lost any control you might have had over it. Sorry.
So, pretty much like all of the music and movies these defenders of privacy around here chuck around.
"Information wants to be free" unless it is about my furry fetish.
Re: (Score:2)
How about Facebook give us the ability to take our data with us so when everyone realizes what they are doing we can move somewhere else?
Any data on Facebook that is yours is because you provided it to them. All you need to do is re-provide it elsewhere. The other information such as what friends have written on your wall, for example, is information provided by them and isn't yours. Get them to re-provide their information wherever else you choose to go.
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
...You mean like how right by every single post in the news feed there is a button where you can hide posts from certain people, groups, etc?
The problem is that the hide button doesn't allow you to hide certain type of news from the feed (at least not anymore). You can hide entire applications, and entire actions of persons from showing up. I would love to be able to hide notices such as "person X commented on person Y's message" or "Person X likes person Y's status", and so on - because I don't care about them and I think they're just adding crap to my news feed - but if I click "hide" it will hide all the messages of the said person.
I don't
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They provide a free service that you must opt-in to participate.
Right. You know how when the 'new' Facebook had 'better privacy features' that it wanted you to add in everything visible to everyone more or less by default?
If you don't like their terms of service and privacy policy then you should delete your account and stop using it.
Which accomplishes what exactly? You can't use Facebook and Facebook still has your info. You do realize that when you disable your account -everything- is still in the system right?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly. Before disabling your account, make sure you change your name to bobby tables.
evil interfaces (Score:5, Funny)
"So, what evil interfaces have you encountered on (or off) the Web"?
Outlook Express.
Re: (Score:2)
Outlook Express.
Outlook Express has been my favorite mail client for quite awhile (though I've been using Outlook 2010 for awhile and the conversation view is growing on me). In fact, I always found the UI rather simple and straightforward - what are the evil parts of the interface you're referring to?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
what are the evil parts of the interface you're referring to?
The "kill puppies" button. Or is that only on my copy of Outlook?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The "kill puppies" button. Or is that only on my copy of Outlook?
Nah, mine has that too. It's right next to the "Famine" button, between the "Pestilence" and "War" buttons.
Re: (Score:2)
O no you didn't... (Score:2)
Where to start.
Shoddy craftsmanship. Highly illogical. Dumb all over (and maybe a little ugly on the side).
After using PINE http://www.washington.edu/pine/ [washington.edu] for a couple of years I was confronted with OE on someone's computer somewhere. It was like a kick to the balls. Now get of my lawn : ).
http://www.nthelp.com/50/Outlook_error_codes.htm [nthelp.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting when the bias gets so bad that people don't even have to explain themselves.
Thou shalt worship the holy trinity of Balmer, Jobs and Linus.
Amen.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's very nice, especially if you want to run something on other people's computers....
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you shouldn't be so quick in categorizing people?
Outlook Express and Outlook are different applications. Former is truely awful email client in pretty much every way (protocol support is a joke, it corrupts its own database, security track record is abysmal, the whole application seems to be implemented by amateurs) -- Microsoft replaced OE with Windows Mail for a reason. Outlook on the other hand is a fairly usable email/PIM client as long as you use it _exactly_ as God and Microsoft intended.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that be "Microsoft and God"? You know that Gates and Ballmer hate second billing :-)
Re: (Score:2)
An interview conducted by a puppet with annoying music dubbed over the first several seconds of each interviewee response.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, thanks, that wasn't just me and my blasted hearing...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That’s nothing. KDE4 even beats Windows ME in this regard.
- Placing and resizing plasmids on the dashboard can literally drive you insane. Because after doing so and releasing the mouse button, you *have* to stay on that element, or the plasmid will reset its position to what it was before. Also it is extremely annoying. If you got two elements right next to each other, the drag bar of the wrong plasmid always keeps popping up right between holding the mouse over the right plasmid, and pressing down t
Re: (Score:2)
ok, this was so wrong i just have to answer.
note, i'm an oldtime kde user, and i still use kde 3.5.10 (on slackware) on my main computers.
currently i'm typing this on a temporary computer with kde 4.3.something. and you know what ? i actually like a lot of things about it enough to consider upgrading from kde3.
That’s nothing. KDE4 even beats Windows ME in this regard.
- Placing and resizing plasmids on the dashboard can literally drive you insane. Because after doing so and releasing the mouse button, you *have* to stay on that element, or the plasmid will reset its position to what it was before.
first, they are PLASMOIDS.
second, you must have some very old version of kde4 - i don't recall sever seeing that problem even when trying out some older kde4 release.
Also it is extremely annoying. If you got two elements right next to each other, the drag bar of the wrong plasmid always keeps popping up right between holding the mouse over the right plasmid, and pressing down the mouse button. But since it is hard to see which one you are now dragging (both drag bars are transparent and looking the same), you are always manipulating the wrong one. It takes elaborate mouse acrobatics to get it to do what you want. So much that I’d strangle the designer, right here, right now.
that also sounds like some older v
Re: (Score:2)
...for an appropriate term for this condition
Collateralized Debt Obligation
Re:evil interfaces (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still think slash is about a million times better than movable type over on boing boing.
slashdot's change password interface (Score:4, Funny)
I tried to change my password and now I can't log in anymore.
The game section, the occasional comment box (Score:5, Funny)
Oh hell, all of slashdot is pretty much evil. It whispers to me: "Visit me, don't work, don't eat, kill your loved ones and strangers. Mod ME!" And I obey.
Re: (Score:2)
We should stop giving something a negative score, only because some dickheads could use it to write angry replies. You may not like it, but it’s true.
Oh, and to a certain set of retards: Only because when you talk, you assume that your personal opinion is globally true, that does not mean that healthy people assume that, when they don’t specifically mention it! When I say “The worst interface”m then ob.vi.ous.ly I mean to me. There is no need to mention it, since it’s assumed.
Forget Privacy Controls... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My bank's front page (Score:2)
As soon as you see the word "richer" (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as you see the word "richer", as in "richer user experience", hold on to your wallet. The only thing rich about a "richer user experience" is how rich it is going to make the person forcing it on you.
sPh
Re: (Score:2)
You generate all the content, they make all the money!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just using the word "experience" in this way is a red flag. "Hello! I am a friendly corporation pretending to be your friend! Boy, I am sure enjoying this fun experience!"
Less deceptive now (Score:4, Insightful)
FB has become less deceptive in some of their newer things. Not that it's a good thing (the method they have done so). Want to list a certain thing about yourself? Sure. If you have it linked to the page/group/whatever about it. Thus exposing your interests and yourself to the world.
...or you can have your profile info page blank.
No option C anymore.
So, nowadays, it has become more of a use of strongarm tactics to ensure that your data is everywhere and available to anyone as opposed to deceptively tricking people into doing so.
I'm not sure which is worse. The current method for me (well, if I cared. Anything I put on FB on my info section is already all over the web or the Star Trek Phase 2 site or IMDB).
One's very annoying (the "we're posting this info linked to you wherever we choose, or you can choose to have an empty profile" method) and the old method is deceptively evil (the "we'll simply confuse you into allowing us to post your info unless you take the time to stop and read what you are doing and opt out" method).
I guess a lot of people were getting smarter - especially with so many warnings online and via other FB friends telling people to click/unclick new "hidden" privacy options on FB every time a new change rolled out. So, FB got smart in creating a new way of using that info with no privacy settings to prevent them from - either post the info so they can do what they want with it - or remove all the info entirely.
Re:Less deceptive now (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the deceptive photo uploader?
I went to upload some photos and it told me that the only way to do this way to use the new shiny facebook photo uploader app, and asked me to install it. I said no (no way, in fact) and cancelled out of it, only to be directed to a page that said "you will have to use the simple uploader but it's not as good". Wait, what? Didn't you just tell me that the new app was the only way to upload photos now (yes, yes it did)?
It's things like that - tricking people into installing facebook apps - that make me question their motives.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about the deceptive photo uploader?
I went to upload some photos and it told me that the only way to do this way to use the new shiny facebook photo uploader app, and asked me to install it. I said no (no way, in fact) and cancelled out of it, only to be directed to a page that said "you will have to use the simple uploader but it's not as good". Wait, what? Didn't you just tell me that the new app was the only way to upload photos now (yes, yes it did)?
It's things like that - tricking people into installing facebook apps - that make me question their motives.
LoL... that is why I said "LESS deceptive" instead of "Not deceptive anymore" ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It was definitely an app "suggestion" that had two buttons on the dialog box: "install" or "cancel".
I have just gone back to see what it does now, and it is taking me right to the java applet, so what has happened to the advanced shiny app they were pushing, I do not know.
Aha! This page has the actual dialog box:
http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=206178097130 [facebook.com]
Now, that box strongly implies that the new plug in (no, let me rephrase: it states categorically) is required to be able to upload photos.
If you c
Re: (Score:2)
Two Related Research Papers (Score:5, Informative)
For those interested, there are two related research papers available by Conti and Sobiesk. The first Malicious Interface Design: Exploiting the User [acm.org] was just published this week at the 2010 WWW Conference. The other is from IEEE Security and Privacy Magazine, Malicious Interfaces and Personalization's Uninviting Future [rumint.org]. (PDF)
Re: (Score:2)
The first Malicious Interface Design: Exploiting the User was just published this week at the 2010 WWW Conference.
And has a helpful demo of malicious interfaces ACM have a pay login link deceptively labelled "Full text Pdf".
The other is from IEEE Security and Privacy Magazine, Malicious Interfaces and Personalization's Uninviting Future. (PDF)
This at least is genuine.
---
DRM; you don't control it means you don't own it. It reduces the value and that means the vendor gets less for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The former was not disingenuous, it's just a perfect example of the widespread use of malicious interface design.
A matter of definitions I guess but to me malicious interface design is disingenuous, in this case claiming the something is available by clicking on the link (full text pdf) when further steps are actually required. It's usually fairly clearcut whether an interface is dishonest or not - it's just that many dishonest people try to wiggle out of it.
The article writer likely has no control over
Ticketmaster (Score:4, Informative)
Here is what I found reprehensible is that when I choose to not store my credit card information on their site, a pop up window with the their privacy policy pops up. Clearly, if it so important to them that I keep my credit card information on their site, then it stands to reason that they intend to misuse it in some way. Ticketmaster already lied to me about the amount they were going to charge to credit card, who knows what else they lie about. Perhaps I was being enrolled in a club that would charge me $50 a month to have priority access to future purchase opportunities. I don't know. I don't know why they would confuse the user and kill a sale just to get to keep my credit information.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. The thing you have to realize, is that Ticketmaster has never been "not evil." They've never even gotten any "not evil" on them accidentally. Bitching about ticketmaster is like the frog bitching about the scorpion in the classic fable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The pirate bay Example, note the DOWNLOAD button is an add and the download torrent link is RIGHT below it and in a smaller font.
This is not a good trend.
Offline Evil Interface - Gas Pumps (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? Every pump I've been to has the grade shown in 2 inch high letters directly on the button with the price shown directly above. When you press the button it lights up and the price is displayed at the top. How could you possibly cock this up?
More worrisome is the recent revelation that many gas pumps to under dispense fuel by 2 - 3%. The government here (BC) did a random test and found a lot of cheating...
Zuckerpunched (Score:4, Funny)
Should have gone with that name.
Yup - maybe an approach? (Score:3, Funny)
It's actually a volume question. If we all would start using that term, and then get some well known people to follow suite, *WE* would define the term. I must admit I like the whole idea of using "zuck" for any deceptive activity that impacts your privacy - I would support that no problem. "Evil interfaces" is, sorry, total crap.
First of all will it confuse people with Google's "Do no evil unless we make money on it", secondly it's not very creative and about as juveline as the content of that video the
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I prefer zucking as the equivalent of phishing information out of users. Facebook zucks information, other phish. After zucking, FB then zuckmines for profit!
Evil Interfaces? ummmm (Score:2)
Anyone use Lotus Notes at work? Maybe it is just me....
Re: (Score:2)
And while we are dissing business applications, I find the default Sharepoint site layout to be confusing, infuriating and generally shitty to use. Really, even MS could have done better there.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats what have to use so I use Outlook Web Access on Linux and it is the worlds worst web mail program by design.
Fake virus scans on OS X (Score:2, Funny)
Real Media, EULAs (Score:2)
Anybody remember Real Media? I hear that they've mostly cleaned up their act, but once upon a time they pulled every trick they could think of. If you started an order on their web site, they would take you to a page with what you want to order, checkmarked, and then a whole bunch of worthless stuff beneath the page fold, also checkmarked. If you didn't uncheck all of the stuff beneath the fold, they would charge you for all of that stuff too. I'm not sure if the full price was even listed before you filled
The Pirate Bay (Score:5, Interesting)
thepiratebay.org has something of a classic. Search, find, click, go to the download page, but wait, don't click on the big green "Download" button, that's for a toolbar or something which no doubt they get paid a little something for every time someone clicks. What you want is the smaller "DOWNLOAD THIS TORRENT" link underneath the inviting big green "Download" button.
No big deal since I like TPB, and what does one expect of pirates? "Yarrr, suckered ye good Jimmy me lad, now give us rum."
Social Graph has the info (Score:2)
Quite possibly the most important info on Facebook is your friends. You can have an empty profile you still have all your friend connections. And if you have 10 friends who said in their profiles that they all went to the same school. You probably did too.
Ponzibuddy (Score:2)
Ponzibuddy, uhm Bonzibuddy...
I don't blame him but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mark is not going to give up access to your data, it is what makes him rich, so people need to realise it's not smart to talk about your vagina or how drunk you got in such a public area. Once they realise that's dumb then maybe they'll tell Mark to quit shilling their data and that little twat will have to find another way to get rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It always amuses me when I start a new contract role somewhere and none of the supposed "IT Professionals" working there know about the "secret" of Expert Sex Change.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah - it's really a man!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)