Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft IM Blocking YouTube Links
A number of readers are sending word that the blogosphere and Twittersphere are alight with reports of Microsoft's new block on messages containing YouTube URLs. Both MSN Messenger and Windows Live Messenger reportedly implement the block. One blogger sniffed the network to discover that such messages receive a NAK from Microsoft's servers. Microsoft has been blocking messages by keyword, as an anti-phishing measure, for some time, but *.youtube.com would not seem to provoke much worry about phishing. Instead, as B.E.T.A Daily speculates, "This block seems to be related to the recent launch of Messenger TV in 20 countries which allows for sharing video clips from MSN Video on Messenger." Hard to get away with in an arena where you don't enjoy a monopoly.
Well, this is clearly designed to prevent Rickrolls.
In all seriousness, I've been sending YouTube links around (and receiving them) just fine. Dunno where the problem is.
Of course, if bloggers and Twitter users say it, it MUST be true.
I write bullshit
This is deeper than Rickrolls, folks. Microsoft has absolutely no reason to block an entire website because of such a phenomenon. However, there's not much of a way of getting around it other than using a URL shortening service or complaining like mad to MSN.
It's reasons such as this that make me prefer AIM/ICQ and Jabber.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
It's Microsoft. "What can we get away with today?" Enough said.
Refusing to carry the links of one of THE most popular web pages on whole internet seems like a poor business decision. If you can't share the links you want then many people are just going to switch.
I mean who doesn't share youtube videos over IM?
Sorry but this just seems ridiculous
if you can. in almost EVERY sh@t microsoft pulled in the last 6 months, you have been inventing lots of excuses. what is the reasonable excuse for this ? why shouldnt google censor keywords like microsoft, windows, xp, vista now ?
Read radical news here
The definition of censorship doesn't depend on who is doing it.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
A number of readers are sending word that the blogosphere and Twittersphere WTH is a Twttersphere? A new form on the R5 space?
--- "When you gotta do something wrong. You gotta do it right. (Fighter)"
That is very easy to test. I tested it yesterday with a friend and also today and in both cases the url send failed.
If I remove the http and www it works, it also works if I change the youtube domain name...
Just tried it. They are indeed blocking Youtube links; You'll get an error immediately if you try to send someone a message including a URL with youtube.com in it.
If the best source of news you can find is a blog with two columns devoted to ads, more ad space in the page that actual content, and that awful attempt at "web 2.0" design, then you probably shouldn't post it to /., or at least not on the front page.
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
Mod me down. They literally must have implemented it in the last 15 minutes, because as of right now, they are blocked, but weren't (for me) right before the I posted the first time.
I just tested with a friend, the same youtube URL failed to go through twice (and not a rickroll or anything, just a cat on a treadmill). Went through fine on yahoo chat, though. And she just tried sending one back, getting a message that it couldn't be delivered.
The thing is, this isn't being blocked at the client level. Its the servers that are blocking these links. Even if you switch to a different client, like Adium, or Pidgin, these links will be filtered.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
deviantart.com
googlepages.com
mediafire.com
ebuddy.com
xanga.com
Workaround: don't add the "http://" in front of the address.
I don't see any change to the monopoly position or behaviour, do you?
Nope, still the same old MS. And stories like this confirm - as hostile as ever to any whiff of fair competition.
Dear AC -1: your love letters notwithstanding, we're not going to rest till your beloved criminal monopoly is history. :)
you had me at #!
... Use something else.One of the best is pidgin, which runs a wide range of protocols. That's a step in the right direction and helps wean people off of MSN and into better services and more useful technologies.
However, from the article it looks like the problem is at the MS servers. So staying on MSN, even with a better client, is still helping feed money (via ads and such) into more anti-competitive behavior and barriers to interoperability.
What should also be mentions is that MSIE now gives 'security' warning messages when accessing Google's Gmail. No. I neither use nor condone use of MS in any way shape or form, but I do check up on those who claim they feel compelled to do so and use them to check periodically. Now that MS is going after Google, Gmail gets the errors. Now that MS is going after Youtube, it gets MS errors, too.
The courts don't won't can't keep up with all these illegal/unethical anti-competitive tactics. The only effective option is to just stop funding it. And that boils down to not using the products, formats, protocols or services tied to that company.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Circumcision is child abuse.
The article didn't claim it was censorship. It made the (purely factual) claim that links to youtube were being blocked by msn messenger. Which they are.
Sounds like you're the sensationalist one out for attention.
so this has NOTHING to do with a monopoly.
No. But it has EVERYTHING to do with a monopolistic mindset.
I agree entirely, and to take it a bit further..
This isn't only not censorship, it's not even evil. It's simply stupid.
When i think of the number of users who are consistently pasting youtube urls to each other...and then think of the number of users who would actually bother using the microsoft video service, i fail to see how there could possibly be a gain in this beyond drastically reducing the number of MSN and Windows Live messenger users in the end overall.
Maybe they just want to get rid of the hippies and only keep the userbase of controllable wallets? Beyond something bizarre like that, i fail to see the advantage in the end.
Ice Cream has no bones.
Hence the "hard to get away with in an arena where you don't enjoy a monopoly" comment. Meaning they're shooting themselves in the foot. The common person will simply decide MSN messenger is broken and switch.
This space intentionally left blank
Does this mean that when I make a call with my cell phone, Verizon can bleep me out if I mention a competitive service? If a company makes a communication medium available to me, and I use it, I expect that the provider of that service will not interfere with my communication unless I very specifically abuse the system or break the law.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
People with email@msn.com addresses never receive YahooGroups.com invites. I get them bounced back to me routinely.
This IM blocking is just another reason to boycott msn.com, hotmail.com & live.com.
[Of course, YahooGroups now adds spaces in URLs I try to send to my groups. I have to TinyURL everything these days.]
I come here for the love
Ms has the habit of getting into troube. This time they performed exceptionally well.
We have a legislation here (italy) that state that tampering with electronic communications with the aim to impede or modify the contents of the messages is a felony. This is because the same legislation for standard mail has been applied to emails, phone conversations and IM.
By my point of view MS is getting sacked really bad in EU. (And they fully deserve it!)
Wow, a URL block fails to catch it if you change the URL's domain name? What happens if you change the TLD? Jesus christ, someone alert... the someone in charge of this madness! It must be stopped!
They do have a monopoly in the UK (and perhaps many other countries in Europe). No one I've ever met uses AIM, a couple of people use Yahoo but they seem to have MSN anyway.
Not a TCP NAK, an MSNP NAK. MSNP messaging uses a NAK'ing model. (So, unless you get a response back, your message is assumed to have succeeded)
I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sorry. I meant "Leaving the http:/// in results in an error". Actually:
/watch?v=something: not blocked if you omit the host
www.youtube.com/: blocked
youtube.com/: not blocked
http://www.youtube.com/: blocked
http://youtube.com/: blocked
Yes, but you are incapable of censoring me, whereas the government is capable of censoring me.
See, preventing me from using your resources to spread my message isn't censorship, because you aren't preventing me from spreading my message, you are preventing me from using your resources, which you have every right to do.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." I'm having a hard time believing that stupidity stretches this far. My guess is that the MSN block list is maintained automatically and somebody found a way to feed bad data into the system.
So let me get this straight, you think the simplest explanation is that someone screwed up and accidentally added youtube, a site that receives millions of visitors a month, is owned by Microsoft's rival Google, and is the most ubiquitous video sharing website in the world; to a blacklist. For several days. [And AFAIK, is still blacklisted.]
Personally, I think a simper explanation is that someone with poor judgment thought banning youtube links would somehow benefit Microsoft. Maybe the decision was a good one, or a bad one. But I certainly don't think it was just "It's an accident, lol!"
Yahoos IM and Microsofts one are compatible so that's probably why they seem to have MSN aswell.
Here in Sweden everyone use MSN aswell, which suck.
I think ICQ was quite large in Germany still, Poland have their own IM-client and ICQ are still biggest in Russia aswell. So it all depends on where you live.
I guess people switched because of Hotmail being bought by Microsoft, included Messenger in the OS and the webcam support.
Well, the link has nothing to do MS, but I sure as hell would like it to be blocked.
If you can't mod them join them.
Earlier today some youtube links were being blocked.
Friend in Belgium alerted me to the issue, as trying to send a link across the room to her friend would even fail.
After some investigation...
It looks like it was a temporary error in the server response, so instead of saying yes, it would just deny the link out of default, suspecting an attack or a bot.
The server responses are now working correctly and so are the links.
Back to your tinfoil and OFFICIAL MS IS ALWAYS EVIL CLUB of the insane...
PS - How come when Google/Firefox re-routes or blocks URLs, (in error or for questionable reasonss) it never makes it to the front of SlashDot?
Get over MS, they dumped you or you them, they are your ex girlfriend, you have a new girlfirend(OS), quit stalking her... (Wait, bad analogy in a geek forum.)
Star Wars Episode III screwed you, get over it... (Better analogy?)
... they don't block tinyurl.com.
Have gnu, will travel.
True, but if they are blocking Youtube while at the same time letting MSN clips through, isn't it just the same old anti-competitive BS that MSFT keeps getting busted for? You'd think after all the EU fines they would at least learn to be a little more subtle. Besides, who in the hell uses MSN clips? I thought the whole reason they wanted to buy Yahoo(besides the webmail) was because the MSN brand is so low it is practically off the charts. If they think simply blocking Youtube is suddenly going to make folks think MSN is great they've got another thing coming. But I'm not a big chatter so this is just my 02c on the subject.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
no, the right to free speech does not include destruction of prperty [an infringement on your rights] nor does it involve illegal trespass. which reminds me, where exactly does a youtube link fit into that on MSN? does that apply to phone calls too, after all it's their infrastructure you're using??...
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
The English word "censorship" has a long and glorious history of applying to entities other than governments. But by all means, continue with your Orwellian attempts to change the language to suit a particular political view.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
"Again: their server(s) and their software." But its not like the Rule of Law allows you to do whatever you want with something just because its yours. Nor should it.
Any other form is perfectly legal.
Yes and no. ISPs, phone companies, etc are all legally protected (much more than normal property owners) from liability for the content that crosses their networks so long as they don't cross a certain threshold of editorial control.
I'd say that this definitely crosses that threshold. IOW, MS is taking legal responsibility for the content of messages passed on their system. You could sue Microsoft if someone verbally assaults you on MSN, and you might actually have a chance in court.
So while the act itself may be "perfectly legal", it does have strong legal implications.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
Actually, in GP's example, Verizon enjoys common carrier status. If they were to filter based on anything, they would lose that status.
"See, preventing me from using your resources to spread my message isn't censorship, because you aren't preventing me from spreading my message, you are preventing me from using your resources, which you have every right to do."
You are totally incorrect. All censorship occurs in some context -- some censorship is small, others large. But it is censorship just the same.
Would you say, "My message gets blocked by the US government, but I can still publish it in Canada, so my message gets out somewhere, hence it's not censorship."? Or, "the NBC censor blocked that scene, but the CBS censor did not, therefore it doesn't qualify as censorship"? Ridiculous.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
It is as long as get tax breaks which make them taxpayer supported and hence government connected. Besides anti-competitive practices is illegal by a monopoly and lets not forget altering privately owned machines without permission.
Quite simple: profit
They've been convicted of monopolistic practices. They keep up at them. They get fined for each time they do, but the fines never address the problem.
I would see one solution: if their online services get caught trying to participate in monopolistic practices, make sure the court orders them to sell the online service to a hostile party. Not just a third party, it has to be someone who has a fiduciary responsability to make microsoft shares worth zero. Tell them right now that's the next penalty for this, and we'll see if they do it again.
I can just imagine msn being owned by a consortium of ibm and aol(ok ok I need a better example...)
Actually, I think that the simplest explanation is that an automated security system in place accidentally hit a false positive. There have been a couple of worms targetting distribution over MSN Messenger lately, so more aggresive filtering to a common message and URL were probably implemented. Youtube links, being terribly common and similar in nature, may have tripped this. That also explains why other commonly references sites for which MS would have no understandable reason to block are also blocked.
Mactrope, willeyhill, inTheLoo, Erris and gnutoo (among others) are sockpuppet accounts of twitter. He uses them to game the moderation system. This whole thread is just twitter replying to himself to see if someone thinks there's an interesting discussion going on and gain karma to get his accounts out of the -1 posting default he's at for trolling.
Once again, Twitter, Slashdot's most maniacal anti-Microsoft troll, beats on the truthout.org dead horse. Of course, Twitter and Marc Ash are cut from the same cloth. They both believe that they are so noble, and their causes so righteous, that they can freely stoop to any depth, and engage in whatever underhanded behaviour they please.
Marc Ash was caught spamming totally unrelated Yahoo! Groups by joining and blasting emails through group addresses.
Twitter threadjacks a story, then shills his comment with three of his army of sockpuppets, including two accounts that are impostors of his critics.
And Slashdot does nothing.
Instead, Rob Malda posts this gem to the front page, claiming that Microsoft "prefers" Flash to Silverlight because Microsoft doesn't have some super-special-secret transmogrifier that could spontaneously transform each and every Flash animation on each and every web site Microsoft owns into Silverlight content, and didn't use it the very minute Silverlight 1.0 was released to the public.
Slashdot has turned reason and common sense and honesty against its own readers.
Delete your bookmarks, people. Redirect slashdot.org to 127.0.0.1 in your hosts file, in case you get the urge to go back. There's no point.
There are plenty of places where advocacy of Free and Open Source software is done without the community being exploited. Slashdot is no longer one of those places. Their hatred of Microsoft has become all-consuming, and they're proud of it. Time to leave them shouting into empty space.
The latest versions of Vista Genuine Service Pack Premium are able to tell that when you type domain name X, you really meant domain name Y.
For example, it knows utube.com means youtube.com (and should be blocked) and it knows that google.com means "live.com" and so on.
Their brilliance brings a tear to me eyes.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Microsoft is trying to lessen the stupidity of YouTube comments by blocking the posters of said comments at the source.
It's the girls. The girls choose one at random and the guys all switch to that.
MSN, SMS, MySpace... wherever the teenage girls go... the guys soon follow.
Teenage Girls sadly are dictating modern technology. Why do you think SMS costs so much? Highschool girls who don't have to pay for their cell phone bills, that's who!