Did A Google Earth Mistake Cause A Couple's Brutal Murder?
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Facebook lays the smack down on FB Purity Userscript developer
I've never been one to install Userscripts, but there is one that I almost always install: Facebook Purity. It's always been great at cleaning up the white noise generated by all the stupid social games my friends on Facebook seem to be so obsessed with.
But it seems as though the Facebook police aren't too happy about how this script alters the content they display in your feed. First, they demanded the developer change the name of his script. Fair enough -- it's damn near impossible to argue that Facebook Purity isn't utilizing their trademark. So he changed the name to Fluff Busting Purity (or F.B. Purity for short).
Next, they shut down the script's fan page (which had more than 5,000 fans) without warning. Fluff Busting Purity has a new fan page up if you'd like to join.
There are dozens of other scripts out there which do the same thing as Purity -- Unf**k Facebook, for example -- and many make far more changes to the site. Is Facebook going to strongarm those devs, too?
It might be their content on their site, but I'm viewing it in my browser of choice on my computer.
You don't own those, Facebook, so keep your filthy mitts off. If I want to run a Userscript which swaps your logo for the MySpace logo, I'm damn well going to.
Check out the full details of F.B. Purity's fight over at the script's official news page.
[via TechDirt]
But it seems as though the Facebook police aren't too happy about how this script alters the content they display in your feed. First, they demanded the developer change the name of his script. Fair enough -- it's damn near impossible to argue that Facebook Purity isn't utilizing their trademark. So he changed the name to Fluff Busting Purity (or F.B. Purity for short).
Next, they shut down the script's fan page (which had more than 5,000 fans) without warning. Fluff Busting Purity has a new fan page up if you'd like to join.
There are dozens of other scripts out there which do the same thing as Purity -- Unf**k Facebook, for example -- and many make far more changes to the site. Is Facebook going to strongarm those devs, too?
It might be their content on their site, but I'm viewing it in my browser of choice on my computer.
You don't own those, Facebook, so keep your filthy mitts off. If I want to run a Userscript which swaps your logo for the MySpace logo, I'm damn well going to.
Check out the full details of F.B. Purity's fight over at the script's official news page.
[via TechDirt]
Comments
11
Subscribe to commentsLevel 5Mar 26th 2010 10:21AM
Personally, I'd rather invest the time using the Hide command for all of the apps I don't want to see on my feed. FBP only works on the machines its installed on. Hiding works everywhere, including mobile devices. It's not automatic but it's much better. Granted that doesn't work when you're viewing a friend's wall but overall it's better.
DiRTMar 27th 2010 10:41AM
FInally! A voice of reason! Kudos. I hate how everyone complains and goes out of their way to install work arounds instead of just taking 30 seconds to fix the problem at the source.
jwilliekMar 26th 2010 10:37AM
for what it's worth, I use Facebook Fixer
(http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/8861)
It works well and has a great configuration menu that blends right in your fb account dropdown on the home page.
LalloMar 26th 2010 11:20AM
How could they close fan pages for this, but not this: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/See-Every-1-Who-Views-Your-Profile-100-working-/371035744365?ref=pymk
AemonyMar 26th 2010 12:48PM
This is like when MediaFire attacked the SkipScreen extension. What the hell? If I want to customize how websites look and behave on my own computer then that's up to me, they can't force me to not do it.
DiRTMar 27th 2010 10:42AM
Yes they can because you are violating their TOS by doing that.
AemonyMar 27th 2010 11:46AM
Not according to EFF: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/its-my-browser-and-ill-auto-click-if-i-want
TOS, TOA and TOU all have an uncertain place on the Internet when it comes to your browser and how websites gets presented on YOUR computer. It's like when rom sites and other copyright inflicting websites "protected" themselves by forcing the user to agree that they in fact wasn't an associate to any company harmful to the website (i.e. Nintendo, Blizzard) and didn't have any hidden agenda or reason to visit the website. Yeah, like if that would hold up in a court. >_
3tearMar 26th 2010 2:12PM
http://lite.facebook.com/
daniel freeMar 26th 2010 5:08PM
adblock: facebook.com###rightCol
DESiBELiMar 29th 2010 3:32AM
I agree that the script is useful and if you're too lazy to "hide" everything manually, go for it.
But I'm not sure Facebook is targeting them because it changes the content but because it's using their trademark and getting a lot of users at the same time. You need to protect your trademarks.
And the fan page, I'm assuming the old one had the old name?
sizzlemctwizzleApr 21st 2010 5:06PM
Facebook can go suck a dick. They didn't event the browser or any of the technologies that their site requires to be displayed. They hand over a bunch of content and how the user decides to display that content is none of their fucking business. They had a right to delete his fan page because he used "Facebook" in the title like it clearly says not to do. He chose to change the name of the script so that it would match the Facebook fan page name. I haven't been contacted by Facebook to change the name of my script(Unfuck Facebook) but I already have a more offensive replacement name if they do bug me.