90 Responses to *IMPORTANT NEWS!* Facebooks legal team have told me I am banned from Facebook because of F.B. Purity

  1. Doctor Zaius says:

    Man, this really blows. FB Purity helps me, a blind user, actually *use* Facebook more effectively than without it. *sighs* I do hope you continue to fight the power.

    • Seriously? says:

      Blind people deserve to be able to use social networking! FB Purity must be a godsend for screen readers…

      Why is Facebook not interested in helping visually challenged people use their site? Just because they won’t see the ads?

      • disgruntled says:

        Essentially, yes. If you don’t see the ads, they don’t get paid, and a wise man once said “If you’re not paying for the service, you’re not the customer, you’re the product.”

      • David says:

        With these items it could lead to legal challenges in Canada because of these comments. This has already been talked about because Bill C35 (or the new copyright law).

        Why not they are already having trouble in Germany.

    • Ryan says:

      Please blog about this! On Google+ or something… ;)

  2. J C says:

    Fight the good fight. Thank you for a great extension!

  3. John Looney says:

    Keep up the fight. I will re post and will make a legal fund donation!

  4. Vanessa says:

    I definitely think you should fight. You posted some valid legal defense for your product and you might be able to find a lawyer who agrees and supports you. It would be good for you–or any web developer–to go up against Facebook to show them how their consumers really feel about the flaws with their product and gain public support for a change withing Facebook’s own structure.

    Fight the good fight, man! If I had your development skills, I’d be right there with you.

    • hgkjfdxydg says:

      “to go up against Facebook to show them how their consumers really feel about the flaws with their product”

      on facebook, we are consumers !! we are the product… hahahahaha

  5. Kafman says:

    I would told you to fight the good fight, but what are the chances that you get into some sort of legal problem? I really support you but I don’t want you to be in some kind of problem…

  6. no name says:

    You should look closely at their terms of service and counter sue if possible.

    Port your product over to suppost Diasp.org

  7. Griffin says:

    Open source it and let other people add to it and make adjustments. Or take on a Secret Squirrel Code Partner :3

    Don’t let them win!

    • nd says:

      Yeah this is the best solution. Open source everything (remember to add sane license) and the project will live. It might be out of your hands but at least facebook would continue to be atleast somewhat usable.

    • John says:

      I agree this is the best course of action. As a developer that also dislikes most of Facebook’s changes, I would love to contribute to the plugin. All you have to do is hand it off and not touch it. The community will take care of changes and you can have your hands clean.

    • Rick says:

      Open source is the way to go in cases like this, where you’re not monetizing it anyway and you now need help. Once you put it on the web it’s always out there and they’ll never know who’s developing it and they’ll never be able to ban all the developers.

  8. The Red Scimitar says:

    If it isn’t open source, why not make it so? Get it out of any one person’s hands?

  9. Bill Fucking Murray says:

    So yeah, it looks like they’ve blocked your link on the facebuck$.

    I dig your style.

    If someone wanted they could visit one of these url shorteners, and someone could take the time to make a shortened unique link that can’t be blocked by using one of their awesome free services to get people to see this link on the facebook…

    First, copy this section:


    Second, you can paste it in one of these:


    Third, put your new link that isn’t blocked by facebook on facebook.

    Just an idea… Do with it what you will.

  10. Trog says:

    Facebook is an evil, pointless excursion into a voyeuristic abyss.
    You have every right to build an extension to an html viewing application.
    If Facebook wants to block all user’s of that viewing application, that is their
    call, but they cannot stop you from building it. I hope you find a market and
    make lots of $$ before Facebook and Instagram are the AOL of 2014.

    Good Luck!

  11. David Jameson says:

    Perhaps you should open-source the code so that the “community” can continue the work.

  12. Rob says:

    “Facebook” is just a word, hence it should be abbreviated just as “F”. In “F. B.” the dots imply two words, making it a completely different thing.

    Check their TOS because banning you for developing a browser extension probably it’s not listed there.

  13. Naked Truth says:

    This sounds like a very useful plugin and I am suprised I have never heard of it before.
    Perhaps think about changing the license and making the plugin open source. With others able to work on it and forks readily available, Facebook will have a hard time shutting a useful project like this down.

    Well I feel your pain really, but kinda goes to show you are fulfilling a need in a niche that Facebook doesn’t supply.

  14. Otis Hulbert says:

    “Facebook’s terms specifically prohibit interference with the way Facebook is rendered to its users”

    So, doesn’t that mean that addons like Stylish should be facing the same legal action?

  15. Pingback: *IMPORTANT NEWS!* Facebooks legal team have told me I am banned from Facebook because of F.B. Purity – F.B. Purity – Cleans Up FacebookF.B. Purity – Cleans Up Facebook | NotSoCrazyNews

  16. Mark Zuckerberg says:


  17. Leon says:

    Heh, I guess that’s Zuckerberg’s version of an open web: You may only use a shitty restrained proprietary API to access the website. GET and POST are evil and forbidden.

  18. You developed an extension that improves how blind or otherwise disabled people experience Facebook, you decided to market it as a “purity” extension so that said blind or otherwise disabled people would not feel slighted (F.B. Purity sounds a lot better than F.B. for the Blind and Otherwise Disabled) — and now that’s come back to bite you in the ass.

    My day seems a lot better now, by comparison. Sorry to hear about yours.

  19. Doni says:

    Would it be as effective to make it into a browser extension? You could go over their heads.

  20. jesse says:

    Definitely sharing this very article on Facebook. Don’t go down without swinging!

  21. If you want to share this (or any other link) with your friends, use https://tlwsd.in — a URL shortener designed to resist third-party forensics and passive snooping :)

  22. Probably the way to go with this is to open source it, such that anyone can independently share and compile it. But just in case anyone becomes fatigued of fighting the ridiculous control freakery of Mr Zuckerberg’s lawyers there is always Friendica. Friendica is already open source. It’s themeable. There is no spam or bribed posts, and you don’t have to be trapped in some AOL-style walled garden.

  23. anon says:

    Put the source up on GitHub and let others help to maintain it

  24. Chris says:

    FB is actually already blocking bit.ly links to this page as well, if interested, I can set up a shortener elsewhere that they might not block

  25. Tom says:

    So if you’ve got some legal proceedings initiated against you, I strongly encourage you to reach out to the EFF. That amazing foundation might have an interest in it (note: I have no connection with them whatsoever. I wouldn’t know who to contact beyond just going to their website so if anyone else has a contact, please pass this story on!)

  26. Andrew says:

    On a positive note, this is the first time I have heard of your very useful sounding program. Definitely going to download it and have a look.

  27. Just make another account with another mail/name! Make the code Open Source is also an alternative. Post this in Reddit to help to spread the word in the comunity. If facebook’s legal department wants you out from its social network, they will take this to the court. In this case, you’ll need some money and in these cases the comunity is always supportive.

    Keep calm and carry on!

  28. aj says:

    Create your own fb with blackjack and hookers.

  29. MailMain says:

    I wonder where is Anonymous. They can sure teach Suckerberg a lesson or two.

  30. Pingback: Facebook bans developer of F.B. Purity browser extension

  31. Pingback: Facebook prohíbe el acceso al creador de la extesión antispam F.B. Purity [ENG]

  32. Dfrost says:

    They say the reasons for the ban are:
    “Facebook’s terms specifically prohibit interference with the way Facebook is rendered to its users”

    Surely should ban all web browsers then, for the way their lovely plaintext HTML etc is turned into an actual webpage?

    Jeez, these guys

  33. I was able to post it on facebook with a link to a lifehacker post about your plugin. Good job and keep up the fight. I would also recommend EFF. Here’s the post I posted with my facebook posting – http://lifehacker.com/5605377/f-b-purity-hides-annoying-facebook-applications-and-news-feed-updates

  34. Pingback: Facebook verbannt Entwickler von FB Purity

  35. Ted Sbardella says:

    This encouraged me to donate finally.. I realized how bad it would be if it was gone..

  36. Pingback: DD Tech Solutions - Facebook has banned the creator of FB Purity, a browser add-on that lets users customize the site

  37. Pingback: Facebook Bans F.B. Purity, Offers Ridiculous Explanation

  38. FB Purity BS says:

    How about you try to create an extension that doesn’t cut into Facebook’s revenue model? All you’re doing is leeching off a popular site. Why not create your own product and then you might realize that advertising is often needed.

    • Rick says:

      Go away, troll.
      I suppose you think I should turn off AdBlockPlus and NoScript, too? Will Zukerburger Burgerzucker* sue them next?

      * Sorry, just watched Santa Claus is Coming to Town

    • Josh says:

      Hey Zuck is that you? How your stock doing?

    • Haresh says:

      It is surprising to see someone actually having such opinion.

      I don’t see any reason why Facebook should try to thwart attempts to make itself a more pleasant site to surf.

  39. Mark says:

    This is the first time I’ve seen such script and the sad part it was banned on facebook. Goodluck with your endeavors!

  40. Cam Tyler says:

    Make it open source! I’m sure you’ll get plenty of donations from the community.

  41. Timothy says:

    Everyone above me has covered most of what I would say. Fight. Distribute if needed. Maybe seek support from the EFF.

  42. Jess C. says:

    Fight them, if you have the energy and time. I’m sure a lot of people would be willing to help, if you could get attention to the cause.. Getting the right amount of attention online is difficult, though. Everyone who reads this page needs to link it.

    It ultimately doesn’t matter because other people will continue to make and use other extensions, I just don’t think you should go down if you don’t have to. Or go down quietly.

  43. Pingback: Facebook Bans Dev Of FB Purity, Addon That's Used To Remove Timeline

  44. Andrew says:

    Just keep updating the extension. It’s not like they can do anything about it. Keep it up!

  45. Jamie says:

    I echo the comments that you should open source it. They can silence one of us but they’ll have a much more difficult time silencing all of us. Github awaits.

  46. Anon Again says:

    Why not just stop using Face Book?

    • Rick says:

      That’s a nice sentiment, but unfortunately facebook is my sole connection to some family members. One in particular is very private, changes cell phone and email frequently to avoid a persistent stalker, and only posts to a small number of facebook friends.

  47. M says:

    I hope you choose to fight back. Your claim that a lot of people use Facebook only because the extension makes it readable is TRUE! I’m one of those people. Without FBPurity it would remain a design mess.

  48. Eve says:

    keep on fighting!

    And remember… you can ALWAYS open a new account under a different email/username. Two can play this game… ;)

  49. Carol says:

    FB Purity was gone when I opened FB this morning but now it’s back! For good? I hope….

  50. face says:

    Open source it. Only way :)

  51. anon says:

    open source it on github…. duh

  52. Lisa says:

    Well………..FB got you this time, but you have the ability to FIGHT! You have us to back you up! Good Luck! :)

  53. Benjamin says:

    come on people, it’s time we abandon Facebook. In fact, I think every single employee should straight up go to jail, and facebook should be no more. come on, we can abandon IOS and BBM and windows for android, why not facebook for google plus?

  54. Josh says:

    Facebook is obviously trying to scare you. You made a browser extension, so only you and the browser have business. If you were using some exploit to trick the browser, then sure, maybe ask you to stop until they fix their bug. This is truly a slippery slope. Based on the FB logic, anyone who presses Ctrl+ or Ctrl- is violating their agreement because they changed the rendering of the content from their “ideal” perception of how it should be rendered.

  55. Brigit says:

    I hope you don’t give up! I LOVE LOVE LOVE what you are doing. Hell, I’ll finally even donate if it helps!

  56. Mat from Melbourne says:

    Don’t open source it! All you’ll end up with is 5 different versions and hence fragmentation. Better to have 1 version so that a critical mass of users is maintained.

    Sell it to an entity in a jurisdiction that Facebook can’t touch. Take Slysoft as an example: they sell DVD decryption software. They operate from the country “St. John’s, Antigua and Barbuda” and have done for a few years. They avoid legal issues by being located in that country.

    The foreign entity should switch away from .com though: they should get one in a more secure tld.

  57. Demojen says:

    Contact the legal team at Electronic Frontier Foundation.

  58. I finally got on and was notified I was warned that I had sent out too many friend requests to people I don’t know..I have sent out ONE this past week..Doubt I was hacked but I’m sure punishment for using your add on..

  59. Jonathan says:

    Facebook is definitely the bully here. You aren’t trying to get your extension in the Facebook app listings (which would understandably be denied), and you aren’t trying to use or abuse Facebook’s API. You haven’t done anything but write a browser extension.

    I think unfortunately that you would lose the battle of F.B. versus Facebook versus FB. Your site exhibits a logo with F***B*** (clearly not standing for fluff busting). The ruling would basically go to “reason”; any reasonable person knows that F.B. Purity carries a strong “Facebooky” connotation. However, if you can prove that they legally allowed that name at one point (via email trails, etc), then you certainly can call B.S. (See what I did there?)

    If they are suing you over intellectual property issues, they will have to prove damages; those damages would come by way of damaging the Facebook brand and by preventing users from seeing ads. They may also seek punitive damages (which I don’t think they would get).

    For your countersue, you would have to prove that your extension does not go against their terms of service, and that you have not directly contributed to realized damages. You could also probably make a case that they are singling you out, but I imagine that the AdBlocker folks probably are not allowed on Facebook either. It certainly is Facebook’s prerogative to disallow service to anyone they choose, however unfair it seems (Facebook is, after all, a business – not a community resource).

    Their suing could only be centered around your violation of TOS (which they would probably win), as the web is an open platform and they wouldn’t be able to sue you for writing code for the open web. In other words, you’re allowed to write all the code you want external of Facebook, and they can’t do anything about it, which is why AdBlocker is still allowed.

    Take a look at Fastbook, Sencha Touch’s recent innovation to prove Zuck wrong about the readiness of HTML5. That certainly changes the Facebook user experience, so why haven’t they been blocked? That violates the TOS, and yet they are targeting you because you explicitly allow users to remove ads.

    My Opinion:
    Like others have said, open source the project. In this case, you would basically call it research, and rename it. Maybe “Social Purity”, and allow Github community folks to add extensions to customize Twitter experience, Tumblr, etc. Facebook would have to go on a rampant account deletion tirade. (Which I wouldn’t put past them.)

  60. I got banned personally, permanently, after I tried to develop an app for a client that fills the user’s calendar with stuff of interest like football matches as the user picks them out of a bunch of categories.

    There is no reasoning with Facebook once this happens. The email you get literally says “This decision is final and cannot be appealed”. Appalling.

  61. Rob G says:

    They have no actual legal control over how a browser may render their site. You are not using their API and you aren’t scraping content then re-serving. This is a feint. Yes, they can hassle you and take away your fan page etc. Your domain does put you in the “have to prove they are wrong, not them prove you right” camp (Expensive). If your product doesn’t actually work on any other social site, kinda hard to claim your claim.

    The above is my crappy, own, not terribly humble opinion.

  62. Stranger says:

    Shame on the Facebook legal team!!! Sh-a-a-a-m-e-e!!! Their arguments sound like those come from the headless clerks. And Facebook itself, it’s a well-known fact – itself was substantially overpriced when they came up with their IPO. So, investors are likely to loose their money any time soon! With this in mind, the FB users hail your efforts to clean up the mess Facebook created! Stay afloat, be courageous, your product has *the value*. And this is the most important thing I want to point out!

  63. Pingback: 尋找完美 blogging/microbogging 平臺 « 噴火獸號:裴列恩之艦

  64. Pingback: 為什麼我們都應該離開 Facebook | 噴火獸號:裴列恩之艦

  65. Laurie says:

    Your rationale is sound and you are providing a valuable 3rd party resource. Don’t give up!

  66. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Clearly time to set up multiple business offerings, mate!

    Fancy co-writing a musical farce about English football?

    I’ve got loads of usable songs, I’m sure your dad could produce a film version?!

    Might be some copyright issues, I guess. Using well known rock/pop tunes but new words and all that……clearly looks like you’ve got the legal knowledge to get round all that or do suitable deals……

  67. Naomi Hinshaw-Hersh says:

    It’s sad that Farcebook has so much power like so many others, that they get away with whatever they want to do and disregard any of our thoughts, feelings or ideas. I’m so GLAD I found this site and that you gave me the solution to my annoying problem. Farcebook sure wouldn’t do it, even after many attempts. Their surveys are a JOKE. Their questions are so loaded, it’s obvious they’re avoiding ours. If it weren’t for my friends there, I’d have left a long time ago.

  68. Peggy Staley says:

    I support you in whatever you decide to do (except buckle to what should be called FaceBully instead of FaceBook). I enjoy Facebook, but what I don’t enjoy is their intrusive practices in certain areas. They probably think they can get you to back off if they send you a threatening letter. I’d hire a good lawyer if I were you.

  69. Kathleen says:

    I have been banned from FB with no real explanation. I have always been noncontroversial, and now I wonder if this is happening to others of your followers.

  70. No name please says:


    Your tiny url link doesn’t work,unfortunately.

    • admin says:

      yes, it looks like the tiny-url.org link redirection service has ceased to exist. however as far as i can recall, the link only redirected to this article that you are replying to. i set up the tiny-url redirect link so people could share a link to the post when facebook were blocking people from sharing direct links on the fbpurity.com domain.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.