Want to get rid of application spam from your news feed? The “Fluff Busting Purity” (originally called “Facebook Purity”) Greasemonkey script cleans all the applications from your feed. However Facebook is going after the developers behind the application, after a failed attempt to shut them down for trademark infringement. On the application’s Facebook Page, the developers have cleaned up their promotions as to not infringe on Facebook intellectual rights.
Now the page refers to the application as “Fluff Busting Purity” or “F*** B*** Purity”. Clearly the starts are an attempt to let the user use their imagination to determine that the application is referring to “Face Book”. Anyways, these types of greasemonkey scripts are not exactly a new thing. Back in 2007, we wrote about Facebook Greasemonkey hacks which provided basic functionality, however none of them appeared to have an impact on Facebook’s business model.
Adblock Plus is one Facebook revenue damaging Firefox application and there are Greasemonkey scripts which do the exact same thing. While we haven’t heard about the ad-blocking applications being pursued by Facebook, we do know that they are not fans of them. Ultimately anything that negatively impacts the company’s revenue or the user experience of the site is not supported by Facebook.
It makes sense from a business perspective, but some people have spun this as Facebook being an evil-doer for pursuing these app developers. If your business model revolves around negatively impacting Facebook’s business or changing the interface, you may want to come up with another idea.
Do you think Facebook should be blocking these types of apps? Do you already have some of them installed?
![[Inside Social Apps 2012]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/ISA2012_336x100_F_RegisterNow.gif)
![[AllFacebook Stats: Facebook Analytics for Your Business]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/stpro_allfacebookstats.gif)
![[How can Facebook change your business?]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/FMB_A_MAY2011_336x100_F.gif)
Yes, I have Greasemonkey on Firefox. I had Adblock Plus but deleted it. My computer crashed all the time when I had it.
Comment by Donna — March 25, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
Yes Facebook should be blocking these apps. It is stealing quite frankly.
Comment by Ray Ray Angel — March 25, 2010 @ 12:04 pm
I had Adblock Plus but deleted it. It caused more problems and my computer crashed all the time. *Bad Bad Adblock Plus*
Comment by Donna Hooley — March 25, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
Facebook is within their right to not like this stuff since thats one of their main sources of revenue. That being said some of the ads on Facebook are annoying as hell so I use a script to clear it up. Additionally the number of people using scripts is not that many compared to the unwashed masses who have no idea what scripts are so I think the impact is over stated.
Comment by Andre — March 25, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
While they can reject their own applications, I don't think they can do anything about AdBlock or other non-facebook applications. There is nothing in their Terms of Services that prohibits users from hiding advertisements or altering the layout of the site. It's an interesting idea, but it would be walking a slippery slope to tell people exactly how they have to view a website.
Comment by Kelly Shane Pickell — March 25, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
Donna, Adblock Plus is used every day by hundreds of thousands of users. The problem with your computer crashing are IFOTK not Adblock Plus.
Comment by Robert Basil — March 25, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
Why should Facebook, or any company for that matter, have control over my browser too?
What is stopping someone writing their own Internet browser to specifically block Facebook ads?
Do we outlaw popup blockers too? They interfere with advertisers' methods of displaying ads.
Do we start shouting at people who don't install Flash because some website uses Flash ads, and this person isn't giving them revenue as a result?
Comment by Henry — March 25, 2010 @ 12:15 pm
"Ultimately anything that negatively impacts the company’s revenue or the user experience of the site is not supported by Facebook."
I liked this post, but just to quibble with this line a bit — don't consumers install adblock and greasemonkey cleansers to positively impact their own user experience?
Comment by Mr. Mxyzptlk — March 25, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
Pretty stupid… they want to be like loser Gayspace with the ads. I like Adsblock Plus, works wonders for me, I am so sick of a lot of the ad garbage. Least they don't pop up or that when you are typing or doing stuff like loser gayspace. The kiddish crap on the side, etc, who needs that. Facebook should just not be so weird with "You agree to the rules" or that other crap they like posting when you post, who cares. Too many scared sheep out there
Comment by Jon Heil — March 25, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
I am the author of "Better Facebook", a greasemonkey script which does a lot of things, including cleaning up the stream and hiding the "Sponsored" box on the right. (It does even more than Facebook Purity)
http://BetterFacebook.net
As of right now, I will remove the functionality to block advertising. It's extremely pathetic on Facebook's part to go after this. They are worth billions, but their web site and code SUCK. Horrible implementation. They should focus on creating a site this isn't so terrible.
I suppose they may come after me too, since my domain has "Facebook" in the name. I suppose I will back down, since they have lawyers and I don't.
It's ridiculous for them to go after this kind of thing. It's like music producers going after people who don't turn their radios up loud enough, or play it loud enough so the neighbors can hear.
In summary, if Facebook didn't suck so bad as-is, there wouldn't be so many scripts and add-ons that fix it. At the very least, they should be hiring the people that write these scripts so they can help improve what is now the biggest site on the web.
Comment by Matt Kruse — March 25, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
I've got AdBlock Plus on several browsers on different computers, and never had a problem with it. I've used it for years.
It's not stealing. No person and no site has any right to download anything to my computer without my permission. I absolutely have the right to control the display and content of any page I visit.
Comment by Shinji — March 25, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
Ad Block Plus works perfectly on all three of my machines and I keep it running all the time.
I am not a thief.
Who owns the copy of a DVD that I purchase? Me. When I play a DVD, I can display it any way I want. I can change the volume or the contrast as much as I want. Once I legally acquire the movie, the copy is 100% mine. I can smash it with a hammer if I want. I can put duct tape on my tv and cover half the screen if I want. This is not stealing. I paid for the DVD and I’m free to alter the image as it appears in my house any way I want.
Turning your head away from the screen as the ads run is technically altering what you see. Are you a thief if you go to the kitchen when the ads run during the Superbowl?
A web site is the same thing. I acquired it legally. They don’t charge for Facebook – they give it away for $0.00. What if I want to increase the size of the font because I have bad eyesight? Am I legally allowed to do that? What if I want to alter my computer to display blue pixels as red because I’m color blind. Am I legally allowed to do that? The terms of the contract are that I give them $0.00 and they give me a copy of the web site. I’m not legally required to do anything beyond paying them $0.00.
You might argue that I’m mean, unethical, immoral and a jerk, and that’s fine, I’ll be happy to argue that with you. But I’m not a thief for altering the content to display on my screen as I see fit.
Comment by Eric Tully — March 25, 2010 @ 5:19 pm
I actually forgot facebook had ads until i logged in using a friends computer.
Comment by Chris — March 25, 2010 @ 5:29 pm
"Yes Facebook should be blocking these apps. It is stealing quite frankly."
That's one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard.
Comment by Liam R — March 25, 2010 @ 5:37 pm
I hated Facebook ads. They would just drive me crazy, especially how they were directed specifically at me based on private information that I was required to enter (like my age and location).
Now I use use AdSweep for Greasemonkey and have NO ADS on almost all sites, and no issues.
Comment by Rob L — March 25, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
“Yes Facebook should be blocking these apps. It is stealing quite frankly.”
how ironic given FB's startup history
Comment by raven — March 26, 2010 @ 4:19 am
I like some of the ads. I really don't mind them. You don't like them? don't look. How about that? no code required and you help the company pay for the service you love to use. I think someone who goes to the extreme of blocking them is selfish and ignorantly paranoid.
Facebook is not a right. When you sign up for service you KNOW they have to pay for it in some way. Targeting you by age and sex is the least of your worries. Go read about direct mail lists and all of the public information that can be bought en-mass about you.
Comment by Mike — March 26, 2010 @ 7:17 am
I'm amazed by the attitude that some people have that they defend Facebook's aggressive, repetitive invasions of privacy, almost as if folks who use Adblock Plus and the greasemonkey scripts are scoundrels.
Facebook might have an argument if they were actually in competition with someone, and struggling for users, but they passed those milestones a while back. FB is now a monopolistic force that by virtue of its size (too big to fail?) and unquestioned dominance makes it increasingly difficult for Internet users to communicate with their colleagues, family and friends without it.
If FB would tone down the visually offensive nature of the ads they allow–something along the lines of Google's text-only ads, which I don't mind because they are not ANNOYING like so much of the advertising on the 'net–then Firefox users might not flock to AdBlock. But that's Facebook's problem, not the users'.
Comment by David Zinjanthropus — March 26, 2010 @ 2:50 pm
Zoran Maoricio Jelic (Arifovic Zoran)
Comment by ZoranMaoricio — April 2, 2010 @ 12:40 am
Americans, particularly white Americans, are so pro-business. Even when being pro-business makes them anti-themselves.
Is it your computer? Or Facebook's?
Comment by Ingemar Smith — April 3, 2010 @ 5:19 pm
These are client-side scripts and engines, and do not affect the website itself for other people. Chances are if I have a ad-blocking script installed, I am not going to be the one clicking the ads in the first place.
Grow up, there will always be ad-blockers out there.
Comment by Leo — June 10, 2010 @ 6:42 pm
I have to laugh at the people claiming that if you block ads on facebook you are stealing as this is their revenue.
1) This is only part of their revenue, the other revenue is from selling users details to advertisers.
2) Have you checked Facebooks ToS? Anything you upload, or put on the site belongs to THEM, to do with as they see fit, you agree to give up all rights (intellectual and copyright) so they can use for whatever purpose they choose. Now that is theft IMO.
A good parody of Facebook by the British Comedy – IT Crowd can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rNgCnY1lPg
Comment by Libra — July 19, 2010 @ 5:36 am
As long as my children are accessing facebook, and I have no control over the types of ads they are shown, there will always be adblocker and greasemonkey scripts.
Comment by Jaye — August 25, 2010 @ 5:46 am
Facebook&Co is already stealing money from me with their "1000 thousand pages to open to do a simple task" policy. They are already gaining money from games and stuff, why should I put more money in their pockets by visiting ad-infested pages? Why shouldn't I get paid for visiting their ad-infested pages?
Adblock Plus work just fine, no crashes whatsoever; unfortunately on one PC it blocks Facebook ads but on another one it does not, I don't have a clue yet why this happens. I'm going to try greasemonkey.
Comment by Gica — October 18, 2010 @ 7:00 am
A very very good point.
Comment by Gica — October 18, 2010 @ 7:25 am
ADblock and its ilke are stealing revenue from business.
The same principle would apply to when you watch a television broadcast from a free provider.
Your service (ie subscription to view) is paid for by the sponsors of advertising. Wether you watch the adverts or not is your choice.
The same principle would apply to when you read a free publication which is distributed and paid for by sponsored advertisements. Wether you read the adverts or not is your choice.
In both cases if you dont want the distruption of the adverts between pages or in the middle of a show – buy a paid version or the service.
Adblockers act to circumvent the "paid" aspect of a service, much like illegal technology that would provide "free premium cable" or access to other premium subscription services by circumventing the subscription.
Adblocking is theft – period.
Comment by Withheld — January 10, 2011 @ 3:37 pm
shut up, zuckerberg.
Comment by patachu — January 29, 2011 @ 8:46 am
I hate commercial, i have no block but every time I logg in I have to erase all the commercials, I really really hate it. I hope there will be a script soon how to erase commercials.
Comment by Liquid — February 12, 2011 @ 8:45 am
I use adblock Plus and the element hiding helper. That way I never see any ads. Also my firewall blocks all the media measurement and web analytics services.
Comment by Ryan — February 13, 2011 @ 12:16 pm
i modified some theme scrripts and now facebook nature background is looking stunning. im still changing the colour codes so they may look much much better.chk them out and pls comment about changed needed. http://themefb.blogspot.com
Comment by rosa — May 27, 2011 @ 1:35 pm
You visit facebook, and you use facebook's bandwidth by doing so, and You voluntarily use facebook's service, then YOU have to agree to facebook's business model. Nobody forced you to type in facebook's url or click on facebook's link to visit them. You can effectively control your browser by NOT visiting sites you know that display ads. If a free community publication you know displays ads, which all do, then you can control your experience by not picking up that publication and viewing their content, which is dependent on their continuing to provide it for free on the ads in the publication. It is the same with a website: for some reason people like you think that because it is online it has to abide by YOUR criteria. Domains are privately owned cyber property with which the owner can do with as that owner sees fit. In fact an owner can block any ip to that domain website as the owner sees fit, including deciding to block through a script users who block ads. Pay for your own domain and you can feel justified to block any ads on your domain and let yourself visit it. But no domain owner owes you the right to visit their site if you choose not to apply to their business model.
Comment by Jake — July 21, 2011 @ 6:37 pm
Changing a font size cannot be compared to blocking something from displaying. When you change font size you are still viewing the words, except making it bigger or larger. You can do the same for the display size of your browser so that a page can appear large or small, and the ads also large or small along with the view size you choose. That is not removing content and affecting the business model.
When you pick up a magazine in your doctor's office that you paid nothing for, you accept by knowledge that the pages you flip through have ads. Does that give you the right to tear out the ads before you look at any page? The doctor's office would probably think you were a fanatical person, plus not let you view any magazine since you deface them.
When you visit a web page volunatily, and you "alter" how the color appears or the font, you are not removing those things, and thus not impacting facebook's business model. But when you block ads, that is not the same as altering size or color; you are in fact on purpose making a fanatical effort to remove a part of facebook, a part which if you had any education you would understand is the ONLY way that facebook can afford to let you visit and use their services for free. There has to be an intelligent give and take: facebook trusts its users understand how it can provide the service for free, that it is dependent on revenue from the ads displaying.
In fact, users like you distort the term "free" of items like television shows and web services and sites: free does not mean that these entities will go on if they do not get income to continue to provide, these are not government sponsored services that do not rely on a profit. Most of these "free" services are profit-based, and that profit RELIES on continued income from advertisers. AND the advertisers can only continue to buy ads on those services, IF they get customers from those ad spots that pay off for their advertising costs, there is no other way that business model works for a profit-based show or website. The only other choice facebook would then have would be to be forced to charge for its services, and that is a model that they probably realize would not work as they depend on volume of visitors and their business model would not probably attract enough paid people to sustain their company at the profit level they want.
Comment by Jake — July 21, 2011 @ 6:51 pm
While the social site already has a great interface and several features, greasemonkey scripts allow users to modify and customize their own profile page, and we’ve made a list of the top 10 best Facebook greasemonkey scripts.
Comment by Shakti Deen — September 26, 2011 @ 5:09 am