Evidence Mounts: Yahoo and AP Manipulating User Content

On June 3, 2010, Dissident Voice published one of my articles titled “Yahoo and AP Caught Manipulating User Comments.” In that article, I let be known that I had an audit trail to prove my contention that Yahoo was porting tens of thousands of comments from one AP article to another. A day later, Dissident Voice published documentation backing up my allegations. Since the publication of the DV article, Yahoo has ceased porting the string of comments I used for my audit. Before Yahoo retired the string of comments that dated back to March 08, 2010, the count had crossed 50,000 comments.

On further probing, I have uncovered even more damning evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this practice was not a software error as some of Yahoo’s defenders are claiming.

On June 3, Yahoo published an AP article titled “US-Turkish man killed in Israeli flotilla raid” by Matthew Lee and Robert Burns, Associated Press Writers. June 3, 4:35 pm ET.

By the time I checked the comment string on that article, the number of comments has reached 2911. So, I decide to go through the whole lot of them. The first one is posted by ‘John.’ You can see the date stamp is Mar 14 and the comment apparently relates to Biden’s trip to Jerusalem where Netanyahu snubbed him by announcing the construction of 1,600 units. As I strolled down the comments, none of the first 2800 comments had anything to do with Furkan Dogan, the 19 year old American who was murdered by the Israelis on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. Not only that, the comments had been ported backwards and forward since March 14. But as you go through the exhibits, you’ll see that’s not even half the story.

Exhibit 1: The first comment is related to the Biden’s trip. You can’t find the original AP article, because while the comments get ported around, the AP articles get removed from Yahoo’s site after a week.

John Sun Mar 14, 2010 06:45 am PDT

I support Israel’s existence as a Jewish State, and remain committed to its security. But as a proud American, it’s refreshing to see the tail not wagging the dog for a change in this relationship.

Exhibit 2: By the time you get to comment 911-920, something interesting happens. There is a four day gap between comments. Check the break in the dates of the comments exhibited. Also notice that the subject matters changes to Iran’s nuclear program. Notice the abrupt break after the comment posted on March 18 which is apparently also connected to the spat between the Obama administration and Netanyahu’s treatment of Biden. By March 22, the date of the very next comment, the subject has been changed – and the discussion has turned to Iran’s nuclear program. What accounts for the 4 day gap?

Thu Mar 18, 2010 04:20 pm PDT

Israel flipped the middle finger at the US and now wants to make up?
Let them fight their own battles, let’s fix the US.

Michael Mon Mar 22, 2010 06:18 am PDT

IF YOU ARE NOT DONKEY LISTEN: Iran nuclear program is intended only to generate electricity.

Exhibit 3: As of this writing, the last comment on the ‘Furkan Dogan murder’ is a reader’s response to the breaking AP story about Israel’s rejection of a proposed international inquiry. It’s posted on June 5 and doesn’t have a time stamp because it’s less than 24 hours old.

Jane 1 hour ago

Why am I not surprised that Israel “rejects” an international investigation! The hell with Israel’s “rejection” of an investigation, let the investigation begin immediately.

I have no confidence of any findings from Israel after they investigate, any more than I do when the US begins an internal investigation of happenings here in the US

Exhibit 4: As I scroll through the comments, I notice that I’m not the only one aware of what’s going on. A poster notices that an AP story has just been posted and has this inquiry – “How come Yahoo and the AP always start a complete new story, with the same discussions from last week or even last month, like in order to keep current you have to start with message 2811”

Exhibit 5: Now, we will go to the first two comments related to the murder of Furkan Dogan. You have to wade through 2800 plus comments to get to them. They are comments 2810 and 2811.

Joe Thu Jun 03, 2010 08:16 am PDT

Good. The only good muzzie is a dead muzzie. Until they accept Christ as their personal savior and radiate his light-and-love, muzzies need to be treated as dangerous insects.

Partheneon Thu Jun 03, 2010 08:35 am PDT


Exhibit 6: This exhibit displays the last two comments remotely related to the murder of the young Turkish-American activist. They are comment 2895 and 2896 and they both relate to the headline. The comments after them apparently relate to Israel’s refusal to accept a UN Inquiry. So the almost three thousand comments ported to this article on the killing to the Turkish-American teenager, only 85 of them had anything to do with the AP story. And those comments are now sandwiched between comments from a dozen unrelated AP stories relating to Netanyahu’s insult to Biden, the construction of 1,600 illegal housing units in Jerusalem, Netanyahu’s warm reception in Congress after humiliating Biden, and Iran’s nuclear bomb.

Guido Fri Jun 04, 2010 09:40 am PDT

19 year-old US-Turkish man ? He was here 2 years as a baby, his family has no allegiance to USA.

Fri Jun 04, 2010 01:35 pm PDT

Why does America need Israel? What are the benefits for the U.S. of backing and financing a jewish state in the middle east? When doe’s biblical loyalty end and real world responsibility begin?

Exhibit 7: Now here’s the killer. Take a look at the time stamp on comment 2809 and 2810. They date back to April 29, 2010. So yahoo found a string of comments dating back to April 29 and ported them to an AP story about Furkan Dogan which was published on June 03, 2010. Why would they do a thing like that?

BEAUTIFUL Thu Apr 29, 2010 06:07 am PDT

The underlying factor of all terrorism, wars and suffering of the people in the middle east is and has been the government of Israel. Think about it
Israel is by far the largest and the most inhuman terrorist organization sponsored by the government of the United States Of America.

America for Americans Wed Apr 28, 2010 02:30 pm PDT

Who gives a $%$% what they think, who died and put them in charge!

Conclusions: Based on the evidence I’m presenting, there can be no doubt that Yahoo is taking strings of comments from one AP article and porting them to completely unrelated AP articles. The murder of Furkan Dogan was not something the mainstream media wanted to dwell on. Compare the coverage of his death with Klinghoffer’s murder on the Achille Lauro. There has to be an explanation for why reader feedback on the murder of a Turkish-American citizen would be buried. As of this writing, you can still read the story. But it doesn’t really matter whether you read the last comments posted or start with the first post. None of them will have anything to do with the subject of the article.

The most disturbing thing about this is that Yahoo and AP had to reach in their old inventory of comment strings and dig up one that was last ported on April 28, brush it off and port it to this AP story. For one thing, why didn’t they take the time to scrub racist and offensive content before reposting them to other articles?

A number of questions remain unanswered. Why are they doing it? Why is it only happening on AP stories which are invariably the ones featured on Yahoo’s main page? Why are they continuing to do it after repeated contacts with the AP? Why don’t they enforce their terms of use and stop posting defamatory and racist content before porting strings of comments from one AP article to another? Why have the AP reporters involved in this racket not made an issue of it? Did Yahoo and AP have some kind of ‘understanding’ about inflating user comments? Is the inflating of user comments a metric they use to market advertizing? If that is the case, does that not constitute fraud? What’s the difference between that and a newspaper inflating the number of copies it distributes?

From a user’s standpoint, why are my comments being posted to articles that I might not have even read? Why are my comments getting buried? Where’s the integrity in that? Any comment you post in response to one article that gets ported to another article on an entirely different subject matter are by definition taken out of context. I think every user should be concerned with that.

To date, AP has not responded to repeated attempts to get answers to my questions. They have this documentation in hand and if there is an innocent explanation – I’m sure I would have already heard about it.

Ahmed Amr is the author of How to Steal a Billion Dollars – the Confessions of James Li. The initial draft is available free of charge on TooBigToSanction.com. He can be reached at: Montraj@aol.com. Read other articles by Ahmed.

31 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. lamella said on June 7th, 2010 at 9:54am #

    The Yahoo! comment porting conspiracy is so pervasive it even extends to their coverage of the MTV Movie Awards!


  2. lamella said on June 7th, 2010 at 9:55am #

    Even AP entertainment writers covering Sandra Bullock are in on the fraud:


  3. lamella said on June 7th, 2010 at 9:56am #

    Sportswriters also use this as an opportunity to bury legitimate debate on the politics of tennis:


  4. lamella said on June 7th, 2010 at 10:01am #

    That string of comments is still being ported on articles relating to Israel-Palestinians even as of today…you just have to enter the right URL. Namely…/s/ap/2010xxxx/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians


  5. lamella said on June 7th, 2010 at 11:48am #

    I don’t want to seem like I’m bombarding you with posts…I had to post the above links separately so they didn’t get filtered for moderation before posting.

    Anyway I have a few minutes to write, so I’ll offer an alternate explanation for the excessively long comment streams on Yahoo!’s AP news articles. It seems that, on some arbitrary date and for some arbitrary story, they create a brand new comment stream for an article on which new comments are posted beginning with #1. Some of these stories apparently wind up becoming the seed for a broader continuing series of articles or a news subject in general, such as “ML Israel-Palestinians”, “Tennis French Open”, “US People Bullock”, or “US MTV Movie Awards”. These broader subjects are always reflected in the URL of the news articles, as I’ve posted above. Comments from the original article are simply tacked on to each subsequent article in the series, and additional comments are added in turn. That is why you see comments in the same stream that are only tangentially related to one another (they were added in response to different articles in the series), and why there may be gaps of several days between comments (gaps between times new articles were published). The original article from which the comment stream originated may have long disappeared, as apparently AP is quite picky about time limits on web availability of its content.

    Given that the comment porting affects even the most trivial of subject matters, it seems much more likely to be an inept technical blooper than a deliberate effort to silence debate. I’m doubtful it even affects their advertising revenues- the number of visitors to a site is much higher than the number that actually take the time to comment. I’m not saying that what they’re doing is right- it’s sloppy, lazy programming and should be fixed. I just think we’re better served to focus on the content in the articles and not on the Yahoo! comment service, which is provided free of charge and without any qualifications as to its reliability.

  6. hayate said on June 7th, 2010 at 12:20pm #

    From the looks of it, lame works for ap/yahoo and has been assigned damage control on this story. A very dedicated worker, I wonder if he’ll get a raise or promotion over this? 😀

  7. lamella said on June 7th, 2010 at 12:26pm #

    Actually I work in biomedical research but nice try attacking the messenger when you don’t like the message. And aren’t we a little paranoid to think AP/Yahoo would even bother to visit this site?

    For a more complicated explanation, I refer you again to the TechDirt page on this very subject, where many of the comment0rs are programmers who have experience working with the AP’s news feeds…

  8. Mike001 said on June 7th, 2010 at 5:55pm #

    lamella – I have followed this story and have reviewed all available evidence and believe that it’s pretty obvious that this goes a little deeper than a technical blooper. And I’ll share something else with you. I have noticed that occasional comments that follow controversial articles certainly do seem like their originators have a protectionist or damage control agenda. One common theme in those comments that I feel have protectionist agendas is the use of mockery, sarcasm, and mild hostility directed at the author or at people whose comments support the conclusions of the author. I think it’s a little odd that you follow the same strategy. You don’t simply provide solid facts to support your position – you mock the suggestion that this situation is rooted deeper than programmers’ laziness while providing evidence that isn’t even evidence. Consider this scenario: you are Yahoo and would like the ability to control/censor reader comments pertaining to “important” topics. You want to be able to manipulate comments by porting some from other articles but you don’t want it to be obvious that you’re doing it intentionally. So, you also meddle with the comments relating to other, unimportant, articles so that people like you can later provide “evidence” that it’s unintentional.

  9. lamella said on June 7th, 2010 at 6:27pm #

    Mike – two words for you: Occam’s razor. You’re building a massive conspiracy around this when a much simpler, fully sufficient, and wholly reasonable explanation is staring you right in the face.

  10. hayate said on June 7th, 2010 at 6:32pm #

    Good points Mike001. One of the things about this comment porting that rules out “accidental” is that not all comments on a subject get ported. You don’t see them going back years, just months or weeks. If it this was a glitch in the programming, one would see much older comments and much more comments being ported. But since the start date of the porting is much more recent, and variable, and also since the porting is not always consecutive comments (in some cases, older comments are later in the posting sequence, than newer ones), it’s very obvious this is something humans are doing consciously. Somebody is moving those comments around, it’s not automatic according to some computer code.

  11. hayate said on June 7th, 2010 at 6:35pm #

    I once had an argument with an israeli sayanim about zionist bias at wikipedia. She was as obsessed with spamming propaganda defending wikipedia as lame here is with deflecting investigation of ap/yahoo. Perhaps it’s the same sayanim…how’s your Chaucer, lame? ;D

  12. lamella said on June 7th, 2010 at 6:42pm #

    Besides, what direct evidence do you guys actually have that they are porting comments for political reasons? None, it’s purely coincidental…and the coincidence is rendered moot by the fact that they port comments on seemingly every single set of AP news stories pertaining to the same topic.

    I’m not saying Yahoo should keep doing this. By all means they should fix it so that comments start anew for each new article.

    I find it hilarious that two people now speculate that I’m here working damage control for Yahoo. I simply believe that DV is a great place to find independent, enlightened analysis of world news, and I feel that stories like this don’t contribute to that environment. Is DV so desperate for a “scoop” that they’re pursuing conspiracy theories in the face of all available evidence? Why not stick to publishing articles that use actual investigative skills and reasoning in their commentary?

  13. lamella said on June 7th, 2010 at 6:48pm #

    “You don’t see them going back years, just months or weeks. If it this was a glitch in the programming, one would see much older comments and much more comments being ported.”

    Well how far back would you like to see them go? To the turn of the millennium? Beginning of the second intifada? The start of the internet? Many stories have only been around for a couple weeks or months, like the Gulf oil disaster.

    “…also since the porting is not always consecutive comments (in some cases, older comments are later in the posting sequence, than newer ones),”

    Interesting…do you have any examples of this?

  14. lamella said on June 7th, 2010 at 6:55pm #

    BTW I should mention that anyone can correct this problem with the comments on their own by simply selecting the option to sort the Yahoo comments by “Newest First” on the relevant news link. Many sites list comments oldest first as default so that readers are able to follow “conversations”…Dissident Voice does it as a matter of fact. No doubt if Yahoo actually wanted to drown out user commentary they wouldn’t allow users to sort comments so that the newest appear first on the list.

  15. hayate said on June 7th, 2010 at 7:02pm #

    Did you find the wmds, yet, lame? ;D

  16. Ahmed Amr said on June 7th, 2010 at 7:11pm #

    It doesn’t really seem to matter how much evidence you come up with – some people just don’t seem to get it or don’t want to get it. What explains that a string of comments that had been shelved since April 29 makes a new appearance on June 3 on completely unrelated content?

    A programming error? We’re talking here about a multi-national corporation that has a few thousand programmers on their payroll. I used to be a programmer – made my living at it for twenty years. If you can write search engine software – you can handle a small glitch that involves porting comments ‘out of context’ backwards and forwards. With all due respect to the staff of DV, if a minor problem like that appeared on this comment string, I’m sure that even with their meager technical resources, they’d manage to take care of it in a matter of hours.

    The other question is how long has Yahoo been doing this? If it’s recent, it is certainly suspect. How come they only have this problem with AP articles which are the ones they are most likely to post on the front page.

    If you’re going to do engage in these types of shennanigans, shouldn’t you set the default so that new comments appear first?

    I could go on. But I’ll wait for somebody to answer the questions. Regarding the technocrati article, they didn’t have this documentation when they made their analysis. In fact, they complained that I hadn’t provided it. Well, now they have it. Let them explain the evidence above.

    I’d really love an answer for Exhibit 7.

    Cheers, Ahmed

  17. lamella said on June 7th, 2010 at 7:12pm #

    Funny, because making claims like: “…also since the porting is not always consecutive comments (in some cases, older comments are later in the posting sequence, than newer ones),” and then not providing any evidence to back it up is very similar to how Americans were misled into believing Iraq had any WMDs at all. You ought to work in propaganda hayate.

  18. lamella said on June 7th, 2010 at 7:23pm #

    @Ahmed: My guess would be that there was another AP story fitting with the topic of “US Israel Relations” (as suggested by the “us_us_israel” in the URL) that was published in late April, and the comment stream was also ported there. They seem to just port them along from article to article all in the same topic.

  19. Ahmed Amr said on June 7th, 2010 at 7:28pm #

    BTW I should mention that anyone can correct this problem with the comments on their own by simply selecting the option to sort the Yahoo comments by “Newest First” on the relevant news link.

    lamella, you obviously haven’t looked at the evidence I provided. Comments are not only ported forward, they’re ported backwards. The effect is that when you click on the story like the one on the murder of Furkan Dogan, you have 2800 comments above it but you end up with thousands of comments below it relating to the subsequent articles it was ported to. So any feedback from readers gets buried.

    You can’t look at this porting problem as an isolated ‘incident.’ you have to look at the number of comments that violate Yahoo’s terms of use. The amount of derogatory and racist stuff that gets posted on their message board and gets ported back and forward needs some explaining. Why don’t they at least scrub it of inflammatory racist crap before porting it back and forth.

    Go out there any day of the week, any hour of the day and you will find some of the most disgusting and derogatory commentary. You’ll find perfectly sane comments that have been blanked out and racist comments that go untouched. It’s organized and it’s no secret that the Hasbara operatives have been out there in force and not just on Yahoo. If it is a Hasbara project, is the Israeli government behind the racist campaign.

    50,000 comments were being ported back and forth until DV published my article. That comment string has now disappeared. They know what’s going on because I let them know exactly what I’m doing. The same information you see here is in the hands of both Yahoo and the AP.

    So try to give me some convincing answers: How long has this been going on? How come it only happens on AP articles? How could the AP not notice? What is the criteria for porting comments? Are users comments posted as long as two months ago on entirely different stories – are they not being taken out of context. How many posters know they’re being played?

    Why don’t you call up Yahoo and AP and find out some convincing answers and post them? Inquiring minds want to know.

  20. lamella said on June 7th, 2010 at 7:43pm #

    I’m sorry to inform you your favorite comment stream is still alive and well as of at least 3 hours ago:

    I’m sorry but your report doesn’t seem to have had any effect on their policies.

    I can’t give you answers to the other questions you have been seeking because – believe it or not- I don’t work for Yahoo. Racist comments on the internet are nothing new, and I doubt it’s a major priority at Yahoo to police the massive streams of comments they must get on all the different kinds of news, entertainment, and sports content they host. And in the United States, the right to free speech should come before the right not to be offended.

    Maybe if you had asked Yahoo nicely, and not in a threatening fashion referencing their legal department, you would’ve gotten some answers from them? As it is I think you’ve just been a source of entertainment.

  21. Ahmed Amr said on June 7th, 2010 at 8:14pm #

    Lamella you said “Racist comments on the internet are nothing new, and I doubt it’s a major priority at Yahoo to police the massive streams of comments they must get on all the different kinds of news, entertainment, and sports content they host.”

    So let’s see now. They port racist comments around from article to article until the count is over 50,000. Then they claim there’s too many comments to clean up. As you see from the above analysis, only 85 comments were posted in response to it. do the math – 50,000 over 50 plus days. Average comments per day – 1000. Number of AP articles the string gets ported to in 24 hours – could be four of five. Average number of comments that would need to be cleaned up per article 200 to 250. It wouldn’t take more than ten minutes. You think maybe you’re exaggerating the amount of work involved in applying their terms of use.

    That link you sent me is very interesting. Because that stream of comments was 50,474. And if you go back and notice on the previous documentation – it was frozen at that number on all the articles it had the string had been ported too.

    I’ll have to continue this on the next post just so I don’t lose this. You’ve helped me uncover a little something here that I’d like to share with you when I get back to you in a few minutes.

  22. Ahmed Amr said on June 7th, 2010 at 8:34pm #

    Lamella – I just followed that link. You’re right – they’re back to porting around the 50,000 plus comments. There is only one little problem. the count is down from 50,474 to 50,412. Even though about 50 comments were posted in the last 24 hours. So, Yahoo obviously does delete comments – they just don’t delete racist and derogatory comments. Read my articles again.

    I have no problem with the right to free speech. I never said Yahoo didn’t have the right to market itself as a platform for racist comments. I just said they’re exercising that right to the fullest and maybe crossing the line a bit by allowing comments that incite violence. See my article titled “Suing Racist Yahoos.” So it’s not a question of me being offended. Although I’m sure if I offended you right now, DV would ban me for life and well they should.

    Incidentally, you’re really helping out with getting to the bottom of this. Why don’t you get in touch with me. You know who I am. Maybe I should know who you are. send me an email so we can collaborate on this.

    You got me real curious about why the comment count went down by a hundred or more. So, let me do a little more snooping around to find out if we can identify which comments have been deleted.

  23. lamella said on June 7th, 2010 at 9:36pm #

    It’s just a guess, but I’m willing to bet a good number of the deleted comments were racist or Anti-Semitic/Islamophobic hate speech that enough users flagged as abusive.

    But have fun sifting through the comments to figure out exactly which ones were deleted. Frankly I’m not that interested what a bunch of idiot strangers post on a public Yahoo message board…I’d be surprised if there weren’t a bunch of racist slurs and incitements to violence. Expecting Yahoo to perfectly police the massive amount of user-generated content on its site (remember, they do not just news, but also sports, games, video, groups, etc.) is akin to asking 4chan to immediately delete all offensive or potentially illegal material from its boards- it’s just plain impossible, no matter how many mods they have.

  24. hayate said on June 7th, 2010 at 9:41pm #

    Yahoo is full of Islamophobic comments, lame. Your comment here is…well, lame.

  25. hayate said on June 7th, 2010 at 9:42pm #

    You’d probably make make more selling used clunkers to elderly widows…but then you’d have to talk to people in person… ;D

  26. hayate said on June 7th, 2010 at 9:58pm #

    And it’s not just Islamophobic comments that are filling up the comments, but racist comments of all sorts, except anti-Semitic ones. The Islamophobic rubbish dominates news articles, but on articles about sports, you’ll see all kinds of anti Black, Latino, Asian racist rubbish, you name it, it’s there. If the story is about Tiger Woods, then the comments are full of racism towards Black people. On a recent article about a Latino ball player, the comments were full of racist anti Latino rubbish. The news articles are full of anti Muslim racism because of people like you, lame, who spam propaganda on the web supporting the pro-israeli status quo. Be it the racist status quo, the corporate fascist status quo, the ziofascist status quo, you name it, you guys, lame, work night and day making sure the world is safe for what normal regard as repugnant.

  27. Deadbeat said on June 7th, 2010 at 11:12pm #


    I appreciate your commentary here on DV. Keep up the good work


  28. hayate said on June 8th, 2010 at 12:12am #

    Thanks, Deadbeat. The same back atcha. 🙂

  29. Deadbeat said on June 8th, 2010 at 2:14am #

    lamella writes …

    Actually it’s no wonder the Palestinian front is so poorly organized against the Israelis when they have people like hayate on their side, blindly firing off his incoherent inner rage in all directions.

    The reason for a “poorly organized” Palestinian front has much more to do with the “Left’s” intellectual leader — Noam Chomsky. Chomsky who is an adherent of the racist ideology of Zionism has been anointed by the Left has its intellectual leader for over two generations. This obvious hypocrisy is why there is tacit support for anti-Arab racism in the U.S. that is clearly reflected in the commentary you are seeing on Yahoo. Chomskyism has crippled and retarded the Left’s ability to honestly confront ALL form of racism.

    To complain about Antisemitism when Jews and particularly Zionists has risen to the such heights with the U.S. political economy rings hollow especially to those on the receiving end of Zionism. In other words Zionism INDUCED anti-Semitic REACTIONS. Unfortunately the Left’s betrayal of its own principles of justices, equality and fairness by giving a free pass to an adherent of a racist ideology. The hypocrisy and the ensuing reactions to this hypocrisy — a microcosm of that playing itself out on Yahoo — are quite predictable.

    We are witnessing the consequences of Chomskyism by the policies being carried out by the U.S. and Israeli governments because the rise of Zionism within the U.S. has gone UNCHALLENGED particularly by the Left and that has created the vacuum allowing Zionism to grow and flourish.

    The rage is not “incoherent” as you state. Such remarks do not provide analysis and create a false dichotomy. What is being argued here is a direct result of the Left’s marginalization of a very serious development — the rise of Zionism into the power structures and political economy of the United States.

  30. mary said on June 8th, 2010 at 4:58am #

    Hayate You’re like a dodgy dentist I once had – good at hitting nerves.

    Keep it up.

    Something I read yesterday that brought me up to a start in view of Ahmed’s recent investigations. Yahoo and Facebook are strengthening their tie up.
    We do not need any more intrusion into our lives and invasions into privacy by these dubious setups.

    btw the dentist was Aussie. And where is Mulga Mumblebrain when you need him? There is much talk of dual nationality Australians in the Israeli forces that attacked the flotilla and I wanted to ask him what he can tell us.

  31. hayate said on June 8th, 2010 at 12:26pm #

    Thanks Mary

    Facebook has been bad news from the beginning. It was set up as a data mining tool by ex-spooks.

    The Truth about Facebook! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B37wW9CGWyY