[Cc-webedit] facebook fan box widget
Jon Leighton
j at jonathanleighton.com
Tue Nov 17 16:42:50 GMT 2009
I gotta say I agree with JimDog. I think embedding a widget like this
would be a step to far for the privacy reasons given, but also because I
don't think it will fit within the actual design of the site. It's one
thing linking to a website with their logo, but it's another thing
embedding a branded, styled box.
I think we should look at what problem we are trying to solve, and if
possible address that head-on instead. If the issue is putting a "human
face" to climate camp, what about getting a load of portraits of campers
at the next gathering, and then having a small space on the home page
along the lines of "this is a climate camper" (the image would be
randomly picked when you load the page). It's only an idea, but I think
we can be more imaginative than just embedding a FB thing.
Cheers
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 09:07 +0000, Richard Braude wrote:
> Wow. that's intense.
>
> For what it's worth, I don't think having a fan box is a great use of
> facebook on the website. It would add faces and names in a way which
> is actually quite alien to the network, and I think it wouldn't go
> down very well. The network does include people you act in the
> tradition of bearing witness and total accountability in their actions
> - but there are plenty you act in an autonomist tradition who wouldn't
> want us to be seen as putting names and faces to our activists on our
> website. Plus, the way JimDog puts it, it would be a bad idea for
> security as well.
>
> I'm in favour of using Fbook and Youtube to help us where we can -
> while also educating people about the issues surrounding these
> companies. But I don't think the fan box would be an appropriate or
> particularly advantageous use.
>
> r.
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Jim Dog
> <theinnercityhippy at riseup.net> wrote:
> Hi
>
> at work so can't write a detailed thing at the mo, but can
> ring you tomorrow and explain better if you like?
>
> The basic problem with this isn't that it's facebook (i do
> have a problem with that but concede that people want to do it
> which is different to this objection- i'll bring that up with
> some proposals for solutions at a later date).
>
> The problem with an embedded box relates to the way the users
> web browser handles that information. Here's a really brief
> summary-
>
> a user types www.climatecamp.org.uk into their browser. This
> sends a request for the front page to our server, which then
> sends the html code for our front page back to the browser,
> which translates it into words and pictures for it to display
> on the users screen.
>
> In this instance, that html code includes the code you posted
> to the list for the facebook embed box. Since the information
> that it requires is not hosted on our server, the users
> browser then automatically sends a separate request to the
> facebook server for the information it requires in order to
> display the missing information. This then gets sent back and
> put in the correct place by the users computer so it all looks
> like it is part of the same page, despite coming from two
> separate places.
>
> The request that is sent to the facebook server contains a lot
> of personal information about the user, including their ip
> address which is uniquely identifying to them (same as a home
> address), time, date and referring url (in this case
> climatecamp.org.uk). This makes it very simple for anyone to
> see every single visitor that our site has had, despite the
> fact that we keep no access logs for our server so that people
> can visit us anonymously if they wish without fear of the
> authorities seizing our server and getting details of anyone
> sympathetic to what we do (we are a direct action movement
> remember).
>
> This is all done invisibly, without the possible consent of
> the visitor and there will be no way to visit our site without
> giving away our personal details to the largest corporation on
> earth, and one in particular known to have close links to the
> us security services (so by default ours too). In short we are
> forcing that upon people and not allowing them to opt in or
> out. This is a pretty outrageous abuse of trust if we go ahead
> with this which is why i say that if we do i'll have no more
> part of it (though i know it's pretty minor part anyhow), and
> to be honest the right thing to do in that situation would be
> to let people know not to visit or use the site if they care
> at all for remaining anonymous or not generating revenue for
> microsoft. This should be made very clear in a pop up warning
> of some kind before the front page loads if you go ahead with
> this anyway.
>
> As i said, ringing me tomorrows probably a good idea, but i
> prefer the conversation to be open and transparent.
>
> In solidarity
>
> jimdog
>
>
>
>
>
> -original message-
> Subject: Re: [Cc-webedit] facebook fan box widget
> From: Jonathan Stevenson <jjjstevenson at fastmail.fm>
> Date: 16/11/2009 5:07 PM
>
> To be honest I'm not aware of the security implications as I'm
> involved
> in this group from the persective of communicating what we're
> doing to
> the world not as a techie - could you elaborate?
>
> Also I definitely don't want to make you leave the group. But
> also I
> think Neil has a point. We use Facebook and Twitter at the
> moment and
> until a non-corporate application does what they do I think
> we're stuck
> with them. Should we ask to be removed from all the major
> search engines
> on the same basis? I'd prefer to support the development of
> non-corporate alternatives while making use of things that
> generate web
> traffic at the moment. I think that's the common ground we've
> found
> across the set of people who've been involved so far, though I
> realise
> that's not the result of a long and proper discussion in
> person, so
> maybe we should work out when we can have that about this.
>
> Anyway, the main thing that looks good about the facebook box
> thing is
> that it shows you some people who are involved in what we're
> doing,
> which at the moment the blog doesn't as it's usually an
> anonymised
> person with no picture etc. If Crabgrass or whatever did this
> kind of
> thing that humanises being involved in Climate Camp then I'd
> be in
> favour of embedding that instead. And a randomly generated
> list of six
> 'fans' of the Facebook groups is quite a good way to address
> security
> concerns I'd say. So I'm approaching it from that perspective
> not from
> wanting to help Facebook sell my data to the CIA.
>
> J
>
>
> Jim Dog wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > i've refined the code a little to make it more suitable:
> >
> > <script type="text/javascript"
> >
> src="http://static.ak.connect.facebook.com/js/api_lib/v0.4/FeatureLoader.js.php/en_GB"></script><script
> >
> type="text/javascript">FB.init("2d8b4fab7bd2a9baf4f71f558e317eea");</script><fb:fan
> > profile_id="13788209740" stream="1" connections="10"
> > width="300"></fb:fan><div style="font-size:8px;
> padding-left:10px"><a
> > href="http://www.facebook.com/climatecamp">Generate
> advertising revenue for one of the worlds biggest polluters
> and least ethical companies in the name of climate camp -
> click here</a> </div>
> >
> > in all seriousness, are people aware of the security
> implications of embedding a link like this in the site.
> Pulling out a feed is one thing but this is way way too far,
> to the point where i'd be prepared to block it (as in my
> admittedly minor involvement would come to an amicable end if
> this goes ahead). Remember the anti capitalist remit agreed by
> concensus at blackheath? We can do better than this ;-)
> >
> > in solidarity
> >
> > an insanely busy jimdog
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cc-webedit mailing list
> > Cc-webedit at lists.aktivix.org
> > https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-webedit
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cc-webedit mailing list
> > Cc-webedit at lists.aktivix.org
> > https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-webedit
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-webedit mailing list
> Cc-webedit at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-webedit
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-webedit mailing list
> Cc-webedit at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-webedit
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-webedit mailing list
> Cc-webedit at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-webedit
More information about the Cc-webedit
mailing list