9 ms·
I suppose Firefox could remove this new encoding too
by ape4 4y ago
I suppose Firefox could remove this new encoding too
- nchudleigh 4y agoWouldn't be the first time they implemented direct anti Facebook features.
- wahnfrieden 4y agoSounds like this calls for some browser extensions Beyond privacy I'm interested in generally a browser extension that disables things that provide free labor to for-profit enterprises, such as hiding the moderation queue (which even has an annoying persistent badge) on StackExchange sites, the one that asks me to provide unpaid labor to private equity and has various rules that sound nice if it were a public utility but primarily work to improve their SEO.
- daniel_iversen 4y agoMost likely can’t be fixed by an extension and also to the parent poster, Firefox can’t strip this info out because the encoded string (how I read the original question) includes the actual metadata about what’s to be displayed. Looks like fb won this round.
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y agoI was actually wondering why the big trackers haven't implemented this yet and how much time it will take them to switch. I mean, the tracking part of the URL is so obvious it's just sitting there and asking to be removed. Most tech people do that, also some extensions, and now Firefox. So it was just a question of time.
- tyingq 4y agoAt least for now, facebook has an endpoint that converts from new to old. https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=URL_ENCODED_NEW_URL_HERE https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=URL_ENCODED_N... Returns references to the older style url in the returned html. I also noticed it's calling that new style base64 string a "story_token" in places, and uses it in conjunction with "page_token" set to "VICE" in this case.
- wahnfrieden 4y agoThanks for digging this up! Looks like a path forward
- rvnx 4y agoNit picky but isn't this action actually illegal in some jurisdictions ? For example in France: « Obstructing or distorting the operation of an automated data processing system is punishable by five years' imprisonment and a fine of €150,000. »
- CRConrad 4y agoBut fetching data from an http server by giving it a URL is what it's for; how can that be "Obstructing or distorting" it?
- wahnfrieden 4y agomaybe! lots of reasonable anti-capitalist action is illegal. it's good to be aware but nothing to be respectful of
- winternett 4y agoNot true if people just choose to stop or slow their use of Facebook. Most of my friends there are barely active. I never use the app, only desktop with ad blocking, but still, nothing there is really interesting to me, so I'm rarely on FB at all. Across the web I never use it to authenticate, and if a private company asks me for any personal info, it's usually inaccurate info that I enter. I have remembered a fake birth date, fake home address, and other details that I use for all these sites, unless they're related to commerce or legally justified purposes. We do not need to provide accurate info to private companies that mis-use our data (provided it is not required for our own reputational purposes).
- wahnfrieden 4y agothe point isn't the one individual service or actor, these behaviors are incentivized and enabled systematically and will repeat
- winternett 4y agoGolly is Facebook extremely boring, dull, and utterly a user experience nightmare... I miss all my friend's birthdays frequently because the experience is so undesirable and unenjoyable on it. Twitter is also fast becoming my least favorite thing to use as well because of a habitually botched user experience.
- Hydraulix989 4y agoBy your same logic, participating on HN is free labor to a VC firm. I don't see how you can draw the line with a general-purpose extension other than simply actively avoiding things you don't want to do through your own volition.
- wahnfrieden 4y agoI agree with the logic, and am free to criticize even if I engage as an individual without power I think a good place to start would be with user awareness
- Hydraulix989 4y agoThat's called hypocrisy :)
- wahnfrieden 4y agoI'm well aware and don't give a shit, I'm not the one as an individual causing the problems in the first place and have no individual power to correct it. But you're free to go spend your time and energy attacking victims of these behaviors as complicit, like a "gotcha" for why these powers deserve to go unchecked
- nonsensikal 4y ago
- CRConrad 4y ago"And yet, I see you participate in society." Sorry about the quote marks; from memory, so probably not an exact quote.
- dredmorbius 4y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32118404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32118404
- remram 4y agoIsn't answering on questions providing free labor to StackOverflow too? Providing way more value to their company? Do you draw a line between answering and reviewing?
- wahnfrieden 4y agoyeah I would like to have a public space to help my peers and am trying to build that in adjacent spaces
- pronlover723 4y agofree labor lol, they're providing a service. For free where free = no money, They give user a way to share with each other, ways to organize events, ways to sell things, ways to send messages with each other, ways to make calls to each other, ways to have video chat with each other, all for free (again free = no money). In return they put ads in your face and to make those ads more relevant they look at whatever data they can gather. I don't like be spied on but gees, they aren't getting free labor. They're paying like crazy. As someone that once at a > $1000 phone bill it's amazing to me I can video chat with friends all over the world via FBs services and pay no direct money to do it and that to keep up with them I can now just post to fb instead of send out a newsletter or write each individual person
- wahnfrieden 4y agoI don't care, there are ways to build public goods services
- ipaddr 4y agoMany sites offer these things for free without the need to track you around the internet. Facebook's business model breaks social expectations of privacy. They make a lot of money because they sell other people your data through ad targeting. Facebook controls the barely tech literate crowd by offering an aol type experience. These services are popular with the masses. No one cares that they give data to facebook so they can be sold more things and leave them poorer. You end up paying facebook no direct money but you have less money and spent when you didn't need to.
- winternett 4y agoThe only time I fill out pop-up surveys is when I want to enter wildly inaccurate data bout myself. That time back when Facebutt forced everyone to use their government names (as if it was an authentic requirement) I was shocked at how many people caved into entering their full name. Companies are having a field day with all this data collection. I hope they get real karma for the deception.
- dredmorbius 4y agoThe extension would likely need some sort of FB proxy in order to decode the provided URL to its canonical source. That is, when copying a FB URL, you'd take the supplied value, feed that to the proxy, get the translated (and presumably canonical OR), and feed that to the clipboard buffer or share dialogue. Needless to say, a fucking PITA.
- blibble 4y agopresumably they've encrypted/MAC'ed it, so you can't without breaking the link
- Mordisquitos 4y agoNot that easy, unless the URL pbfid thingy can be easily parsed into separate "post id" and "tracking id" parts — which I bet it cannot. One alternative, which would require significant effort and investment but would be a brilliant way to outsmart Facebook's crap, would be to accumulate pbfids in a common pool such that, if a given pbfid points to post X, fetch a different random pbfid that points to post X. If the initial pbfid is not recognised, add it to the pool once the post is determined, either as a new alternative for a known post, or as a novel entry. Of course, FB would hate it and would either try to expire old pbfids (and risk breaking "legitimate" links) or use legal threats, which would require them to openly admit that they don't give a shit about people's privacy preferences.
- texasbigdata 4y agoSmart but now there’s another third entity you have to trust to aggregate all this personal information from a slew of users just to… avoid the same situation initially? Sort of seems like only a marginal improvement.
- aaomidi 4y agoThe third party can’t really do much with this data.
- johannes1234321 4y agoThe third party can still see which users decode the exact same string, thus derive relationship networks. (If i regularily share links to my friends they all resolve it at the third party to te "canonical" form, that third party then knows that all those are my friends)
- aaomidi 4y agoAssuming you can even decode it. Could just be an encrypted string.
- shultays 4y agoEven if it can, it won't the next one. Which fb simply encrypts to url (assuming it is not encrypted already)
- bamboozled 4y agoHere is a good way to do it, block the entire domain :) Piece of s**
- lwswl 4y agoFacebook could also just make it completely opaque, and just add random data to their urls(by which I mean a+b=c, not a+b=ab), and then subtract it on their end. Then you literally might not be able to see anything, not even the webpage directory.
- dredmorbius 4y agoSo: pass the URL to FB to decode to canonical value, and return that for further operations (share, copy/paste, etc.). This would have to be through an extension or an internal browser function. The canonicalisation request would have to be w/o the initial person's FB identifiers as part of the request (e.g., cookies, etc.). FB might cotton on to immediate re-requests after URL provision, though that would be an interesting approach and yet further signs of expressly violating expressed intent.
- bencollier49 4y agoThey literally just announced they were doing it. https://gizmodo.com/firefox-update-stop-url-tracking-chrome-safari-brave-1849124540 https://gizmodo.com/firefox-update-stop-url-tracking-chrome-...
- tedmiston 4y agoThat's the old encoding (fbclid), not the new one (pfbid).