

Facebook Unsocial Reader - haberdasher
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/lbdpfpcjdacpjajeiinhbbgdahbdgdbh

======
nikcub
wrote the same thing when they first released social reader (it has been here
on HN):

<http://github.com/nikcub/frictionless>

the problem is that they change the HTML elements every few days and it is a
pain to keep up with it. I am in the middle of rewriting frictionless to use
an external ruleset which will be updated, not requiring the extension to be
updated.

you can see what we go through to get this to work consistently across
loggedin/loggedout users, all the different apps (what you do wont work for
all apps) and all the different use cases:

[https://github.com/nikcub/frictionless/blob/master/webkit/fr...](https://github.com/nikcub/frictionless/blob/master/webkit/frictionless.safariextension/chrome/content.js)

(we also anonymize referral and click data)

Edit: to add, i'd be more than happy to merge the efforts and we are
definitely seeking contributors. would rather one extension that works all the
time than two that don't. we have already put in a lot of time keeping this
extension up-to-date since launch with all the changes and updates made by the
social readers.

~~~
haberdasher
Thanks Nik. I agree that it makes much more sense to join forces and merge
efforts.

1) This extension looks at all wpsocialreader links, so unless they change the
URL paths, it should still function.

2) Is your extension still in the webstore? I tried the link in the github
repo, but it's 404'ing.

~~~
nikcub
we took it down from the webstore temporarily so that we wouldn't be adding
new users while the extension is in a state of flux. I will email you to work
out how we can merge efforts - we have a plan for what we are going to
implement in the new version. It would be good to have more eyes on the
project and on the social reader keeping it updated.

Edit: just realized that I can't find your contact info. can you ping me on
nikcub at gmail? I am also nikcub on GitHub - are you on there?

------
negamax
Has no one noticed that you can set permissions to the app posts. You can set
it to visible to _only yourself_ at the time of installation.

~~~
aseemk
I've noticed it, but I'm still wary of that data entering Facebook at all.

~~~
jrockway
Why?

~~~
iamdave
Because they've consistently shown they can't be responsible with it. That's
why.

~~~
jrockway
I'm interested in specific examples or theoretical concerns, rather than "I
said so." This is HN, not Reddit.

~~~
anonymoushn
Facebook will disclose to Alice a list of all people who have Alice in their
contact list on their phones (and use the Facebook phone app). I was told by
Facebook engineers that this is working correctly.

HN discussion: <http://hackerne.ws/item?id=3145857>

There have been other things, but most of them were fixed rather than being
called features.

~~~
whatusername
As an FYI: the canonical URL is <http://news.ycombinator.com> or in this case:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3145857>

------
alanh
I understand philosophers like Sarte and Kant would agree that the moral thing
to do here is not use a plug-in that lets us nerds cheerily use links
generated by an evil feature without harming ourselves (by auto-sharing what
_we_ read), but rather choose _not to follow such links_ and to _warn our
often-unwitting friends_ that they are auto-sharing content merely by reading
it.

Because the question is, what is the effect if others were to act like
ourselves?

One action still rewards these evil social reader / frictionless sharing apps.

The alternative helps impede them.

I know which world I want to help create.

~~~
homosaur
It actually has no effect on the market, it's the same as if I searched for
the name of the article in Google. Companies can't tell that I'm using the
link for the app or not. I do agree though on discouraging your friends to use
these things and I think it's important to point out to people that they are
autosharing without really understanding what they are doing.

~~~
dkarl
If an article looks interesting, I usually comment saying, "Sounds
interesting; I'm not going to use that social reader app, but I will look up
the article later." That lets people know that if they really want their
friends to read an article they'll get more bites if they post it as a link.
Fewer people using the app does affect the market, and the plugin removes the
main disincentive to using it, which is that your friends will ignore the
links you post. It's better to raise awareness of that disincentive than to
bypass it.

~~~
alanh
Often I don’t even see an option to comment on these stories! — Especially
when they appear as little lists of articles people have been reading.

------
mainevent
Am I wrong in thinking that you can just click cancel and it takes you to the
article anyway?

~~~
sid6376
From personal observation, its inconsistent. A lot of the guardian links take
you to the article on pressing cancel, but the yahoo feed doesnt.

~~~
dlf
...and that's why they're failing. I never read anything from Yahoo anyway.

~~~
eli
Well lots of people still do, or this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.
The Washington Post is the same way.

------
prodigal_erik
The weird thing is this is so automated that it doesn't even convey any social
proof. It's not "articles my friends actually thought were interesting" so
much as "linkbait my friends fell for".

------
lalmalang
maybe im just paranoid, but a bit wary of installing chrome-ext without a
quick perusal of the source. Is this github'ed?

~~~
dylanpyle
Whether it is or not, chrome extensions are just ZIP files with a .CRX
extension - with a quick rename, it should be trivial to unpack and peruse it
yourself.

~~~
haberdasher
You could look at the source, but it's obfuscated (sorry). Also, it's not
github'd (sorry).

If it makes you feel any better, a different extension of mine has 7000+ users
and no complaints of evil things being done:

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bgonpegbhnjepleakg...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bgonpegbhnjepleakgjdbaepkfedhhnf)

------
valgaze
Posting what articles one reads is a very bizarre feature- waiting for when
this bites a political dissident someplace

------
andreasklinger
Mediocre but (afair) working alternative solution. Create a friendlist with
no-one (but yourself) And give those apps only stream_publish permission to
that friendlist.

~~~
rboyce
No need to create a friend list for that - you can just set the visibility to
"Only Me" when you first authorize the app.

------
nischalshetty
Cool stuff. What I usually do is click the link and then set the privacy level
to "only me" so that no one knows what I'm reading.

~~~
EvilTerran
If I see a headline that interests me, I tend to copy-and-paste it to my
browser's search box, and find the article that way.

Actually, more often than not, I've forgotten about "social reader", so click
on the headline -- then, when they try to get me to give them access to my
account, re-think whether I can be bothered searching for the article. About
half the time, that stupid popup costs them at least one pair of eyes.

I agree with the giant text on the link: "Worst. Feature. Ever." It's just
such a blatant, obnoxious attempt to manipulate your users.

------
Monotoko
I just highlight the title, right click and select "Search Google" usually...
takes me to the same place without giving FB any info. Interesting app, but
I'm weary of using Chrome because of the data it gives to Google. (Can't win
these days - I just want to browse in peace! D: )

~~~
ominous
Isn't Chromium = Chrome minus Google?

~~~
jrockway
No. Google Chrome is Chromium + closed source components like the PDF reader.
Wikipedia has a list of differences here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)#Differen...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_\(web_browser\)#Differences_from_Google_Chrome)

Both Google Chrome and Chromium let you choose a search engine other than
Google when you first start it.

The privacy policy is a good read if you want to know exactly what information
Google collects:

<https://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html>

My read of this indicates that Google is not tracking what sites you go to,
only sites that don't resolve or attempt to feed you a bad version of Google's
SSL certificates. And, if you believe that Google is actually tracking the
Safe Browsing queries when they say they aren't, you can ask either browser to
not check for malware:

[https://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&an...](https://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=99020&p=cpn_safe_browsing)

------
switz
This is great. I wrote an article[1] on this exact topic after I felt that it
was not getting the attention it deserved.

[1] <http://www.saewitz.com/recently-read-articles-on-facebook>

~~~
alanh
I wrote on it, too: <http://alanhogan.com/facebook-pseudo-links>

And aggregated a few (more noteworthy) bloggers’ reactions:
<http://alanhogan.com/facebook-frictionless-sharing-pushback>

------
rradu
This doesn't work on Yahoo links, only on Guardian and WaPo links from what I
can tell.

------
haberdasher
FYI - Updated the extension (due to a suggestion from a HN reader) to just do
an "I'm feeling lucky" search, so now it's a one-click affair.

~~~
mpvosseller
Working great!

------
gburt
Thanks for this, this whole frictionless sharing/social reader stuff is the
worst!

~~~
alphang
Agreed. Every time I see it I get very angry. It's like seeing software betray
your friends.

I've had at least five friends who have unknowingly shared their readings on
Facebook. A few of them were guys who were reading about sexy gossip and
celebrity bikini shots and whatnot. The result was embarrassing and annoying
for them.

------
naeem
Seems to die if I try to open up chat, but otherwise its been solid for me.

------
nextparadigms
Social might become a bit of a negative word online in a few years.

