Do you support Facebook blocking the developer pages of those who are creating the various AdBlock* browser extensions? Isn't that pretty much the same thing as FB Purity is doing but in a more general sense?
Who said anything about supporting? I am just stating that it is a product and you can choose whether you use it or not, for whatever reasons you deem worthy.
They shouldn't be allowed to ban a company from having an account on Facebook for a web extension?
Will the developers of all the AdBlock variants need to worry about their accounts being blocked as well (as they surely are against Facebook's terms of service as well)?
His point is that AdBlock to a certain extend does the same thing as this plugin. You don't want to see ads, great we'll remove them. It just doesn't go as far as this plug in does in removing inline adverts and re-organizing content, but that's because it a generic ad blocker and not Facebook specific.
So why is it one rule for this guy and another rule for AdBlock (or any other extension)?
I run AdBlock, and was shocked to see the amount of adverts on "normal" computers, truly shocking. Does that mean you should ban my account? They have a Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/adblockplus
Maybe Google should stop offering AdBlock as a Chrome extension, given that advertising is a huge chunk of their business?
Can they optimize Skype so that it doesn't require 80MB-130MB just to run in the background? How can it require this much memory to run an instant messenger? Couldn't they delay load some of the features if they aren't yet being used (such as video codecs and audio codecs and other such features?)
> If you don't like the security measures then don't go there.
But what happens if you are Palestinian like the people in these stories and as a politically aware Palestinian you become active in pro-Palestinian activism because you care about the rights and freedoms of your people? Those are the people that Israeli is targeting if you read these articles.
Your posts which highlight LGBT rights while completely ignoring the elephant in the room (the 40+ year occupation affecting millions) fits well with what is described in this New York Times editorial as Pinkwashing:
But stamping down such opinions is actually pretty common. These email searches are about preventing people with those opinions from entering Israel. It isn't about terrorist threats but it is about keeping out pro-Palestinian activists who do not agree with the policies of the Israeli government.
> This just sounds like an attempt to keep individuals of certain backgrounds out of a country.
Absolutely correct. The security officials believed that the individuals where pro-Palestinian activists. Here is a quote and article that details this:
"The agent, suspecting Tamari was involved in pro-Palestinian activism, wanted to inspect her private email account for incriminating evidence. The 42-year-old American of Palestinian descent refused and was swiftly expelled from the country."
Israel does prevent those with sympathy to the Palestinians from entering Israel.
I posted this quote/article in response to another comment but it is pertinent here:
"The agent, suspecting Tamari was involved in pro-Palestinian activism, wanted to inspect her private email account for incriminating evidence. The 42-year-old American of Palestinian descent refused and was swiftly expelled from the country."
You will notice this isn't about security but about identifying pro-Palestinian activists:
Quote: "The agent, suspecting Tamari was involved in pro-Palestinian activism, wanted to inspect her private email account for incriminating evidence. The 42-year-old American of Palestinian descent refused and was swiftly expelled from the country."
