Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Blocks Users From Mentioning BugMeNot.com

ThinkingInBinary writes "The other day, I was trying to mention bugmenot.com in my Facebook status, and I discovered to my horror that Facebook blocks the phrase 'bugmenot.com' as "abusive" in status updates, messages, and presumably any other communications on the site. Facebook isn't even listed on BugMeNot, as they requested that logins for Facebook be blocked. This is pretty ridiculous, as I can't even send my friends a message mentioning bugmenot.com!"

448 comments

  1. That is ridiculous by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

    On Slashdot, I can mention [abusive language filtered] or even [abusive language filtered], why can't I do it on [abusive language filtered]?

    Total [abusive language filtered], I say.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:That is ridiculous by pilgrim23 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Years ago I recall a tracking system at a place I worked where the text field was parced as code. It saw the word "in" apearing in the sentence in text as an INSERT and the word preceeding it as a variable in which it would insert the word following, then truncate everything else.
          Thus the phrase

        THERE IS A FIRE IN THE BUILDING! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES
        would show as

      THERE IS A THE.

      Later this was repaired and the designer went on to work developing web design at
      Facebook....

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    2. Re:That is ridiculous by Bogtha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny, but anybody who has tried to post code, logs, or something atypical of normal prose on Slashdot has probably run into the lameness filter at one point or another and had to either "massage" it to sneak it past the filter, or simply delete that part of their comment.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    3. Re:That is ridiculous by Jim+Hall · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just be happy they didn't also make you wear a yellow star on your sleeve.

      Godwin's law has been invoked. This discussion thread is now dead. Anonymous Coward loses.

    4. Re:That is ridiculous by The+Redster! · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't suppose it's possible to get an exception in the lameness filter for the word "developers," is it? We really need that.

    5. Re:That is ridiculous by dmmiller2k · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anyone remember [expletive deleted], circa Watergate?

      --

      "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin

    6. Re:That is ridiculous by prgrmr · · Score: 1

      I like your sig, the whimsy is definitely appropriate here.

    7. Re:That is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try living in Scunthorpe.

      It's hell.

    8. Re:That is ridiculous by mweather · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well at least he's only doing web design. Glad to hear he's not programming anymore.

    9. Re:That is ridiculous by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Anyone remember [expletive deleted], circa Watergate?

      Yes, it's been updated to "redacted" for the current administration.

      The difference is, now all the swear words are left in, but the facts are covered up.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:That is ridiculous by Hordeking · · Score: 0

      Actually, just be glad they aren't wearing red stars on furry hats, and they aren't named "Soviet Union" or "China"

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    11. Re:That is ridiculous by RobBebop · · Score: 4, Funny

      On Slashdot, I can mention cocks and cunts or even fucking assholes, why can't I do it on Facebook?

      Total shit-eating-pigfuckers, I say.

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
    12. Re:That is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      {{A*b`u^s_i'v,e!}} filter bypass

    13. Re:That is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey whats this?

      http://s.fsdn.com/sd/iframe/text/javascript
      http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/ostg.slashdot/tech_p9_leader;pg=index;logged_in=1;tile=\
      http://s.fsdn.com/sd/iframe/tech.html?

      thank god i have noscript and addblock eh2

    14. Re:That is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as someone says godwin, they lose automatically.

    15. Re:That is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just be happy they didn't also make you wear a yellow star on your sleeve.

      Godwin's law has been invoked. This discussion thread is now dead. Anonymous Coward loses.

      You who else liked to invoke Godwin's law?

    16. Re:That is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your comment makes me want to buy Soft Cialis for some reason.

    17. Re:That is ridiculous by Tweenk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Reminds me of the clbuttic filtering mistake, which is mbuttively worse. I think you should rebuttess the severity of this.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    18. Re:That is ridiculous by rukcus · · Score: 1

      This is not necessarily Nazi related. Muslim have been forcing Christian and Jews to wear distinguishing marks in Arabic countries for centuries. Dhimmis, as they are called, were forced to wear bright clothes to distinguish themselves from Muslims.

      Also in Medieval Europe, Jewish males were forced to wear Jewish hats, unlike Yarmulkas, when leaving the Jewish ghettos.

      Needless to say, persecution of Jews is nothing new, and distinctly un-original in all cultures.

    19. Re:That is ridiculous by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 4, Funny

      On Slashdot, I can mention cocks and cunts or even fucking assholes, why can't I do it on Facebook?

      Total shit-eating-pigfuckers, I say.

      There, fixed that for you.

      On Tue, 13 May 2008 ******* wrote:

      I try to live a good clean life by learning all I can and nurturing my body and spirit. I'm afraid that I will not be able to become part of your community as I find it sick. Sick in mind body and soul. Why your people deem it necessary to use the language that they do I can never understand. Women, children and people of faith will never be able to learn what you have to impart because of the filth you are tending in this rank garden. Please stop sending me email.

      This is why we can't have nice things

    20. Re:That is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Needless to say, persecution of Jews is nothing new, and distinctly un-original in all cultures.

      Not least of all by our mothers. Oy!

    21. Re:That is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shit man, that fukking sucks

    22. Re:That is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you invoke Godwin's Law, you automatically nullify it. Nazi.

    23. Re:That is ridiculous by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      pfffffft, you can't program in a markup language!

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    24. Re:That is ridiculous by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I heard about a terminal set up in a science museum environment so that kids could play with it. Of course it got covered with dirty words so some bright spark wrote a program to filter them. Unfortunately it needed a way to display the full list of banned words...and there is no way to keep that facility away from a bunch of young hackers.

    25. Re:That is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you Hitler!

    26. Re:That is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Selling +mods, email v1agra@gmail.com for details.

    27. Re:That is ridiculous by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

      Finally we know what we're supposed to do with disagree mail.

    28. Re:That is ridiculous by jcuervo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, I just found out that Slashdot censors social security numbers. Check it out: XXX-XX-XXXX.

      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
    29. Re:That is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous Coward loses. And to think it took many years for AC to build a solid reputation of having an intelligent, and honest discussion. Shucks!! who am I kidding? Exclusive Site for College Students: http://www.inkampus.com/www.inkampus.com

    30. Re:That is ridiculous by www.inkampus.com · · Score: 0

      Hey, stop bugging him!!

      http://www.inkampus.com/

      --
      New Site for College Students: www.inkampus.com
    31. Re:That is ridiculous by gacl · · Score: 1

      On Slashdot, I can mention Microsoft or even George W., why can't I do it on Facebook? Total cow poop, I say.

      I turned the filter off for you.

    32. Re:That is ridiculous by Opyros · · Score: 1

      A recent Language Log post about it

    33. Re:That is ridiculous by DarthJohn · · Score: 4, Funny

      wow! mine's hunter2
      what's that look like to you?

      too bad bash.org is still down.

    34. Re:That is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The moral growth of a great nation requires reflection, as well as observation, to appreciate it.

      What is this childlike rebelliousness(take that, Godwin!) towards the mentioning of an extremely recognizable, historical(to the younguns, some were still alive during his nightmarish reign) dictator who, occasionally and especially in these days of our worsening police states, is fairly relevant to the discussion at hand?

      All this outcry on /. over government censorship, it seems all that's needed to fix the problem for them is to mention the misdeeds of Hitler. I find it amusing, and sad. How long before you willingly censor yourselves from speaking of Orwell? How long before you burn books?

    35. Re:That is ridiculous by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      it also rhymes in both Latin and English

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    36. Re:That is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but haven't you ever heard of Zyklon B?

    37. Re:That is ridiculous by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Speaking of cialis, I found an email in my spam filter that upon closer inspection ended up there because of the word "socialism". You work it out.

  2. Yes you can by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is pretty ridiculous, as I can't even send my friends a message mentioning bugmenot.com!

    Of course you can, you just can't use Facebook. Which is probably for the best anyway.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Yes you can by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. I'm trying very hard to get incensed here, but I just can't work up a reason to care. Oh noes! I must say "Bug Me Not website" when talking about BugMeNot! Horror of horrors! Shocker of Shockers! Quick, make a comparison to Nazi totalitarism! Facebook is like... Hitler, that's it!

      Conspicuously absent is any mention of negative actions taken by Facebook. They didn't close his account, they didn't sue him, they didn't kick his dog. They didn't do anything other than remove a link to a site. Whoop de do. Try typing a URL into Youtube comments sometime and see how far you get.

    2. Re:Yes you can by Vectronic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not the best filter anyways... as you are still (currently) allowed to use "bugmenot" without the .com so you can still say "bugmenot website" etc...

    3. Re:Yes you can by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exactly. If you don't have a person's email address, then they're not exactly your 'friend', are they? Yeah, everyone has 500 friends these, they're just that popular! Yet how many of these friends would they trust their housekeys to?

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    4. Re:Yes you can by philspear · · Score: 1

      That was marked as insightful? A little like the old "If you don't like the way Bush runs america, you can move, america sucks anyway." That's not a good solution. Yes, there are issues with it, but there are some good uses with it too. For one thing, it's a great procrastination tool.

    5. Re:Yes you can by Von+Helmet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, given that one is a website that you don't have to use, as against a country in which you live without a huge amount of choice, I'd say that analogy is absurd.

    6. Re:Yes you can by Net_fiend · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why does a dog always have to be kicked? Why can't it be a cat or a rabbit?

      Now, I understand why it wouldn't be a snake or a lizard. One a snake would a)slither away or b)bite the bejesus out of you and a lizard would probably just flick its tongue and scamper off.

      But can we just leave the dogs out of it? This message is not brought by PETA.

      --
      "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
    7. Re:Yes you can by janrinok · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd say that analogy is absurd.

      Of course it is. Not a single vehicle was mentioned, nor is there any similarity between the subject argument and roads, vehicle taxes or anything else related to transport. It is obvious that /. is going to the dogs....

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    8. Re:Yes you can by bryce4president · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well at least it is getting better, it used to be puppies getting kicked...

    9. Re:Yes you can by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because a cat will turn around and kick your butt or die trying and a rabbit... well... Look at the BONES!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    10. Re:Yes you can by Grimbleton · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are a lot of people I know in meatspace and have known for years (Such as a girl I lived next door to all my life until I moved away from home) who I have on MySpace and Facebook, and have no other way of contacting them because that's the most convenient way -for them- to communicate.

    11. Re:Yes you can by mikeyandwiththugs · · Score: 1

      Also, the filter doesn't seem to apply to user status. Go crazy, people!

    12. Re:Yes you can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fixed....

    13. Re:Yes you can by hurfy · · Score: 1

      Not sure on rabbits

      The cat, however, will simply stay attached to your leg til your skin peels away....

      lol, we actually had a cat do that to a dog that got in pissed in its yard. He jumped on its back and dug in...dog got out of the yard, and the street, and the block :)

    14. Re:Yes you can by Vectronic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really? I tried "bugmenot.com" as my status just before typing that comment, refused...

      Warning: This Message Contains Blocked Content
      Some content in this message has been reported as abusive by Facebook users.

      However, that is for http://www.new.facebook.com/ but switching to the old one, does allow you to use it, but as anyone who has a Facebook profile should have noticed (if they are using the old one) it has a Notice at the top, saying that it will be manditorily switched to the new one "soon"

      New Facebook will soon be the only Facebook
      Soon, we'll be switching Facebook over to its new design. You can see it ahead of time.

    15. Re:Yes you can by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      How many people who's email or telephone number you have would you trust your house key too?

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    16. Re:Yes you can by philspear · · Score: 1

      Okay I don't win the analogy award. Was it so bad that you couldn't get my point? If the guy didn't want to use facebook, he wouldn't be complaining, he would just stop using it. He's complaining, so saying "just stop using it then" is not really an insightful suggestion, anymore than "You don't like bush? Move to france" is a helpful suggestion.

      The two are both really ways of saying "Shut up."

    17. Re:Yes you can by amRadioHed · · Score: 5, Funny

      Quick, make a comparison to Nazi totalitarism! Facebook is like... Hitler, that's it!

      Oh sure you joke about it, but if you read anything written in Germany while the Nazis were in charge you'll find that bugmenot.com is missing from all those writings as well.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    18. Re:Yes you can by linal · · Score: 0

      Well it can't be rabbits because people might go around shooting fascists as well. And I'm pretty sure people would start to get all up in arms about that.

    19. Re:Yes you can by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 5, Informative

      Uhhhh, the 1st only applies to what the US Government can't do, not to what a private company can do with it's free service.

      With that, I hope you were being sarcastic.

    20. Re:Yes you can by amRadioHed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All of them really, since only the ones I really trust actually know where I live in the first place.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    21. Re:Yes you can by mikeyandwiththugs · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, you are right. I did use *old* facebook to set a status including "bugmenot.com." However, I went on to switch to the *new* facebook, and the illegal status stayed.

    22. Re:Yes you can by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Using that same logic, then you would not have a problem giving your house key to the random people on a social network either.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    23. Re:Yes you can by ah.clem · · Score: 1

      Hm. Well, I guess that pretty much let's you know where you stand in those relationships, eh?

      It just seems pretty weird to me to be friends with someone that can't even spare an e-mail addr.

      I'm just sayin' what's true for me.

      ah.clem

      --
      "Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
    24. Re:Yes you can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I know. Yahoo Answers filters out the word goatse! What is wrong with people these days?!?

    25. Re:Yes you can by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Oh noes! I must say "Bug Me Not website" when talking about BugMeNot!

      Are you sure that will get through? These Paranoia Filters are becoming all the rage on message boards and blog comment sections. Some of them are pretty insistent.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    26. Re:Yes you can by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      Apparently, bugmenot.com has been reported as "abusive" by facebook's "users" as I tried to set my status with the phrase as well, just to see. So they might take action if enough accounts of "abuse" occur from trying to use the phrase - still, it is kind of silly if your only method of communication is Facebook.

      Why, back in MY day, we used e-mail and we liked it!

    27. Re:Yes you can by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Of course you can, you just can't use Facebook. Which is probably for the best anyway."

      Of course you can, just use obfuscation after describing your obfuscation technique, such as spelling it backwards:

      moc.tonemgub

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    28. Re:Yes you can by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I was in school we made up a party poster that showed a dog with a gun to its head and the caption"Come to our party or we'll shoot the dog".

      Outrage ensued - letters to the editor, threats to shoot us, calls to the SPCA to remove that poor dog that we are obviously abusing...

      Kicker was, not only was the poster copied from one at another school (where it was the largest party of the YEAR!), it wasn't even our dog. in the picture.

      The end of civilization won't be heralded by meteors, or volcanoes, or Al Gore - it will be when everyone finally loses their sense of humor.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    29. Re:Yes you can by MooUK · · Score: 1

      You would trust everybody who knows where you live with your house key?

      Seems to me that it makes more sense to give a key to someone who DOESN'T know where you live than someone who does.

    30. Re:Yes you can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most dog's aren't as fuzzy and nose-wiggly as rabbits, that's why.

    31. Re:Yes you can by Hordeking · · Score: 0

      Why does a dog always have to be kicked? Why can't it be a cat or a rabbit?

      Now, I understand why it wouldn't be a snake or a lizard. One a snake would a)slither away or b)bite the bejesus out of you and a lizard would probably just flick its tongue and scamper off.

      But can we just leave the dogs out of it? This message is not brought by PETA.

      Not all snakes are bad. They're quite beneficial.

      Please. Think of the snakes.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    32. Re:Yes you can by Kijori · · Score: 1

      If you don't have a person's email address, then they're not exactly your 'friend', are they?

      Clearly you're not new here...

    33. Re:Yes you can by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Because goatse is NEVER the answer.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    34. Re:Yes you can by scipiodog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why does a dog always have to be kicked? Why can't it be a cat or a rabbit?

      The purpose of the dog being kicked is to show how bad something is... Dogs are awesome, so anyone who kicks dogs is bad. QED.

      Cats, on the other hand, are demon spawn of Satan, and should be kicked.

      --
      http://clightnirish.wordpress.com/
    35. Re:Yes you can by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Don't underestimate the power of lizard tongue flicks.

      http://www.sheldoncomics.com/archive/070127.html

      Squee!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    36. Re:Yes you can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because kicking dogs is evil, and kicking cats is just fun.

    37. Re:Yes you can by mini+me · · Score: 1

      I have friends who I'm sure would be happy to give me their email address, but since we've had no reason to email each other, it has never been exchanged.

      Of course I could ask for the email address of every person I meet, just in case. But why bother when Facebook does it better?

    38. Re:Yes you can by PawNtheSandman · · Score: 1

      I was unaware they had internet access in jail. How is it going Mr. Vick?

    39. Re:Yes you can by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      This is pretty ridiculous, as I can't even send my friends a message mentioning bugmenot.com!

      Of course you can, you just can't use Facebook. Which is probably for the best anyway.

      Aside from the fact that I find Facebook moderately useful for keeping in touch with people I went to school with some ten years ago, I would agree.

      Ubjrire, gurer vf nyjnlf gur ntr-byq zrgubq bs olcnffvat fhpu svygref, juvpu znxrf zr jbaqre jung'f gur cbvag va hfvat fnvq svygref va gur svefg cynpr. Cebzbgvat gur hfr bs Yrrgxrl?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    40. Re:Yes you can by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      Using that same logic, then you would not have a problem giving your house key to the random people on a social network either.

      I think the logic follows that he wouldn't be "friends" with random people on a social network, only those he actually was friends with.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    41. Re:Yes you can by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Why does a dog always have to be kicked? Why can't it be a cat or a rabbit?

      Cats get huffed. Wabbits awe foah hunting. Shh! Be vewy, vewy quiet!

      Now, I understand why it wouldn't be a snake

      Kick mah trouser snake and I be poppin' a cap in yo' ass, foo!

      (This message is brought to you by People Eating Tasty Animals.)

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    42. Re:Yes you can by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      when asked about trusting everyone who has his phone number / email with a key, the answer was that it was no problem because whiel he did not trust everyone with access to his house, only those who he did trust actually knew where the hosue was located.

      So, it seems that he does not even trust everyone that he is "friends" with in the "real world" outside of a social networking site.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    43. Re:Yes you can by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of people I know in meatspace and have known for years (Such as a girl I lived next door to all my life until I moved away from home) who I have on MySpace and Facebook, and have no other way of contacting them because that's the most convenient way -for them- to communicate.

      I can relate to this, ever since 'Caller ID' was invented and everybody got that capability through their cell phones, I've lost all my friends and love interests, including this really pretty girl I've known all my life who said 'hi' to me once, and I've been relegated to the deep bowels of their MySpace and Facebook pages (which they don't even check now). :(

    44. Re:Yes you can by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I kept mine there, along with various other profanity and disgust with the new Facebook.

      But, I wonder how long before there is some sort of by-pass script, which will allow you to use the old status update after the new Facebook is the only Facebook... but that's probably just the lazy black-hat in me hoping for some cr4zy h4x0rz to start fucking with Facebook, it would be a great day when I go to FB, and there's is some error message about the database being hijacked... or everyones profile pic is goatse.

    45. Re:Yes you can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was in school we made up a party poster copied the cover of National Lampoon that showed a dog with a gun to its head and the caption"Come to our party or we'll shoot the dog".

      There we go, fixed that for ya.

    46. Re:Yes you can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you know, anybody with a bit of time and Google....

      Peter F. Miller
      XXXX* Cleveland Ave, Apt X*
      San Diego, CA 92103-2486

      *santized, don't want to be a complete jerk...

    47. Re:Yes you can by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      You are supposed to be outraged because next, it's your ISP. They'll even be able to point to Facebook and say, "Well, FACEBOOK censors people, and nobody complained, so why can't we?"

    48. Re:Yes you can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does a dog always have to be kicked? Why can't it be a cat or a rabbit?

      Because, fuck you. That's why.

    49. Re:Yes you can by grumbel · · Score: 1

      Except of course that Facebook isn't just a random website, but a pretty big one and also one of these social nets ones, which means that not only you, but also all your friends have to move elsewhere, good luck trying that.

    50. Re:Yes you can by legirons · · Score: 1

      Why does a dog always have to be kicked? Why can't it be a cat or a rabbit?

      http://www.theagitator.com/2006/01/23/they-always-shoot-the-dog/

    51. Re:Yes you can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Kicked_My_Dog

    52. Re:Yes you can by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      yes, frankly it *IS* silly to only communicate over Facebook. You never use e-mail, IM, or *gasp* an in-person meeting?

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    53. Re:Yes you can by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      In-person? That doesn't involve a computer!

    54. Re:Yes you can by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Why does a dog always have to be kicked? Why can't it be a cat or a rabbit?"

      Everyone knows you swing a cat to measure the dimentions of a room and kick a dog to vent frustration. However never mess with rabbits unless you are one of the Goodies.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    55. Re:Yes you can by NoisySplatter · · Score: 1

      I managed to set my status to "is reading about bugmenot.com" so they either changed it or this article is a sham for publicity.

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    56. Re:Yes you can by XnavxeMiyyep · · Score: 1

      Well, those puppies had to grow up eventually. After awhile, we'll be kicking dog corpses.

      --
      I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
    57. Re:Yes you can by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      Well, most of them have their e-mail addresses (as well as AIM screen names, phone numbers, addresses, etc.) listed in their profiles, but if they prefer to talk via MySpace or Facebook, I'd be a bit of a jerk to contact them some other way, wouldn't I?

  3. That's impossible by 2.7182 · · Score: 3, Funny

    You can't block someone from saying something like

    1. Re:That's impossible by halivar · · Score: 5, Funny

      30 seconds is the different between (Score:5, Funny) and (Score:-1, Redundant).

      I think moderation should switch to (Score:Gold Medal) and (Score:Silver Medal) so late punsters don't feel so bad.

    2. Re:That's impossible by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, but do we take away the (Score: Gold Medal) from the Chinese posters who lied about their karma bonus?

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    3. Re:That's impossible by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think moderation should switch to (Score:Gold Medal) and (Score:Silver Medal) so late punsters don't feel so bad.

      The trouble is if your karma's not the best; "funny" will neither increase nor decrease your karma, while iinm "redundant" is bad for your karma. So if you're going to joke, it's best to make sure you have damned good karma. Not only is there the "redundant" danger, you can (and I often do) get modded "troll" or "flamebait" by the humor-impaired (or maybe because the joke's just not funny).

      If you just got done metamoderating you can post anything you damned well please ;)

      I don't understand the term "karma whore", whouldn't a karma whore be someone selling karma by modding people up for money? If you're trying to gain karma wouldn't that make you a karma john? According to some arsewaddles in town called PORA who are trying to stamp out prostitution, the poor little whores are victims. So please, stop victimising karma whores by modding them up!

      Oops... I'm offtopic. Damned prostitution union will kick me out!

      Do we have any karma pimps?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:That's impossible by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      I hear they contracted candlejack to do their

    5. Re:That's impossible by edalytical · · Score: 2, Funny

      Damn you! Anytime I meta comment on moderation I get sent to karma hell. Even worse if I mention the specific moderation I'm expecting to get. Maybe I just attract modders with attitudes, but regardless the system is broken because a modder isn't really accountable for their mods and doesn't have to justify why they modded something the way they did. Thus the person receiving the moderation doesn't get any real feedback such as why they're a troll or why they're offtopic or why they're flamebait. So whatever useful discussion could have taken place becomes even more unlikely since most people don't read comments below a certain threshold. Modderation only really works when a person's only intent is to be disruptive (spams, fist post and other things that are obviously disruptive). Unfortunately anything in the gray is at a disadvantage because one person's humor can be considered flamebait, troll, etc. And another person's serious misunderstanding can be considered redundant, offtopic etc. Anyway you get the point.

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    6. Re:That's impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If karma prostitution is legalized, what would the karma police arrest people for?

      Talking in math? Buzzing like a fridge?

    7. Re:That's impossible by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

      Actually, based on the term crack whore, a karma whore would be someone willing to do whatever they can, to get karma. Obviously sex (cyber at least) will only get you modded offtopic on slashdot so they do whatever else they can.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    8. Re:That's impossible by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Only if they seem to be little children.

      That might include most of /. I know...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    9. Re:That's impossible by sm62704 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Anytime I meta comment on moderation I get sent to karma hell.

      I wasn't talking about commenting on moderating. There's a thing called metamoderation where you moderate the moderators. They give you a list of ten random comments that have been moderated, and you moderate the moderation as "fair" or "unfair". Comments modded "Funny" you metamoderate as "funny" or "unfunny". Allegedly, if you metamoderate a mod as "unfair" the moderator won't get any more mod points for a while.

      I usually metamoderate daily, sometimes twice. Most mods I see are fair; most of the ones I mark as "unfair" were modded "troll" or "flamebait" because some idiot disagreed with the comment (often I disagree with the downmodded comment yet still downmod the moderator). From what I've seen in others' journals, I'm pretty typical of slashdot metamoderators.

      Today I've been modded 4, Funny 2, Insightful 4, Informative 0, Redundant (it was a good mod; I basically said something along the lines of "I agree with you) 4, Interesting 2, Informative and 2, Interesting.

      The best way to get karma is be polite, be informative, know what you're talking about (or ask intelligent questions), get stories posted to the front page, and I suspect in my case the journals about hookers and booze help some.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    10. Re:That's impossible by edalytical · · Score: 0, Troll

      Thanks for the tips! May I subscribe to your newsletter? By the way meta comment on moderation is a very different beast than metamoderation. Sure you weren't talking about commenting on moderation, but your post was very much a comment about moderation.

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    11. Re:That's impossible by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have to try really really hard to get bad karma. I've told a lot of bad jokes that get modded down and I've never seen my karma drop below excellent. So yuk it up, if you ever have anything marginally worthwhile to say, you're karma will be pegged at exellent.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:That's impossible by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      You could just not give a shit about your "karma." I find not giving a crap about what number that doesn't matter is next to my name in some buggy website's database to be a good philosophy in general.

    13. Re:That's impossible by zacronos · · Score: 1

      I don't understand the term "karma whore", whouldn't a karma whore be someone selling karma by modding people up for money? If you're trying to gain karma wouldn't that make you a karma john?

      I think you've got it wrong. If you're a crack whore, you're not someone who sells crack (that would be a crack dealer). A normal whore is someone who will do sexual things for money; a crack whore is someone who will do just about whatever it takes to get crack, including doing sexual things for money (which is then used to buy crack). The term strays further from the typical meaning of the term "whore" in other contexts, such as the attention whore, who will do things (often sexual or at least sensual, but not necessarily) for attention. Similarly, a karma whore on /. will make posts designed to acquire karma.

    14. Re:That's impossible by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      This is why I hate karma. Everyone views it as the horror of horrors if they get modded down. The second comment SHOULD be modded redundant, because it is. This eases reading the thread as now I don't have to read the same comment multiple times. I don't care what time the post was made, just that I've already read it. Besides, karma is easy enough to come by. The odd downmod every now and then isn't gonna hurt.

    15. Re:That's impossible by Jonboy+X · · Score: 1

      A (blank) whore is someone that does something reprehensible for (blank).
      A crack whore has sex with people for crack.
      A karma whore has sex with people for karma.

      Get it now?

      --

      "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
    16. Re:That's impossible by Vehstijul · · Score: 1

      30 seconds is the different between (Score:5, Funny) and (Score:-1, Redundant).I think moderation should switch to (Score:Gold Medal) and (Score:Silver Medal) so late punsters don't feel so bad.

    17. Re:That's impossible by Bronster · · Score: 1

      We were watching "so you think you can dance" the other night, and they had a little kid on doing a very impressive dance routine. I couldn't resist it, at the end I said:

      "actually, they've got an ugly kid backstage doing the real routine, he was just miming"

    18. Re:That's impossible by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Heh, the closest thing to a newsletter is my /. journal. It sometimes talks about slashdot, but usually it's about booze and hookers.

      Note the comment (mine) you responded to was modded offtopic, and rightly so.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  4. I can't get to bugmenot.com at work either. by bigtallmofo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Everyone seems to have a problem with it. It's really bugged me that I've never been able to get to bugmenot from work:

    Access to this web page is restricted at this time.

    Reason:
    The Websense category "Hacking" is filtered.

    URL:
    http://www.bugmenot.com/

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:I can't get to bugmenot.com at work either. by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Bypassing 15 pages of annoying registration to read a newspaper online is 'hacking'? Who knew.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:I can't get to bugmenot.com at work either. by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Websense where I work has all of sourceforge listed as malware...

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    3. Re:I can't get to bugmenot.com at work either. by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Corporate web filtering tends to be retarded in general. I just noticed yesterday that my work blocks Google Notebook claiming it's a "personal storage" website, or some such nonsense. Thankfully gmail, which unlike notebook is actually used by people for transferring files, is still available.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    4. Re:I can't get to bugmenot.com at work either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to use a Tor client to get around the BS at this place.

    5. Re:I can't get to bugmenot.com at work either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not thinking hard enough. Is outgoing telnet filtered? If not, grab yourself a freeshell at some place like SDF, telnet there, and then use lynx to get where you need to be.

      Or use your proxy of choice.

      Pfft. Filters. They're welcome to them.

    6. Re:I can't get to bugmenot.com at work either. by trifish · · Score: 1

      Bypassing 15 pages of annoying registration to read a newspaper online is 'hacking'? Who knew.

      No, but (at least according to US laws) unauthorized access (e.g. using a password that was not issued to you) is hacking, and also a criminal deed.

    7. Re:I can't get to bugmenot.com at work either. by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      Ah, the joys of a completely unfiltered internet gateway...working in IT does have some perks after all!

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    8. Re:I can't get to bugmenot.com at work either. by alextmqazwsx · · Score: 1

      Corporate and School
      the new filter is set up to block restrictively but it does not block 4chan

    9. Re:I can't get to bugmenot.com at work either. by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Reason: The Websense category "Hacking" is filtered.

      Better than the messages I get at work. I go to 'the onion' and am greeted with:

      Humor is forbidden

    10. Re:I can't get to bugmenot.com at work either. by wronskyMan · · Score: 1

      The person who WAS issued the password, though, has in most cases consented to its use by posting it to Bugmenot so it would not fall under the normal hacking definition of taking someone elses login/PW .

      --
      --- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
    11. Re:I can't get to bugmenot.com at work either. by trifish · · Score: 1

      The access rights were given only to one specific person and are implicitly non-transferable (unless stated otherwise in a registration agreement). Any person publicly disclosing its password is helping others to hack into the system. Any website that willingly and intentionally facilitates such activities is participating in hacking (complicity).

    12. Re:I can't get to bugmenot.com at work either. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      My company doesn't ban gmail, but we have pretty strong warnings against using it to transfer files in-house. And pretty strong warnings about transferring any files out of the company in fact. Be careful there.

  5. Slashdotted? by JeepFanatic · · Score: 1

    So of course I'm trying to load bugmenot.com to see what it is and true to form ... it appears to be slashdotted already.

    1. Re:Slashdotted? by JeepFanatic · · Score: 1

      I take that back ... it's responding now.

    2. Re:Slashdotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thanks for the update. I was really concerned there for a moment.

    3. Re:Slashdotted? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Dude, I was going to post "mod parent funny", now I have to say "mod parent fucking hilarious!"

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Slashdotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +6 to Awesome.

  6. FBmenot.com by bigdaddyhame · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your life is not limited to FB. If you want to tell a friend about bugmenot.com then send them a proper email, not a social marketing tool.

    --
    ---- You are fully entitled to my opinion.
    1. Re:FBmenot.com by mustafap · · Score: 4, Interesting

      or write a letter.

      Try it, it's fun. I even bought a fountain pen. It feels nicer than a biro, or typing on the keyboard.

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    2. Re:FBmenot.com by AndrewNeo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dear [friend],

      I'm writing to inform you that you should visit this very useful website called bugmenot.com. You can visit it by going over to your computer, opening a browser window, typing in "http://www.bugmenot.com/" (without the quotes!) in the address bar and hitting enter.

      I hope you enjoy it!

      Sincerely,
      KewlDude1774

    3. Re:FBmenot.com by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

      Most of the people here are engineers or work in IT. That fact that you mention this speaks volumes about how much you know about engineer/IT handwriting.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
    4. Re:FBmenot.com by couchslug · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Try it, it's fun. I even bought a fountain pen. It feels nicer than a biro, or typing on the keyboard."

      I would, but my scanner is broken so I have no way to email letters.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:FBmenot.com by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      It's absolutely essential if you want to write a lot. Anything else tires your hands out like hell -- even the best biros.

      Not to mention even the cheapest fountain pen will write thicker than the best biros, so you get more readable text to boot.

      And finally the reduced effort in writing means your handwriting will often be better with a fountain pen.

  7. I have the workaround! by bunratty · · Score: 3, Funny

    They don't anyone to know this, but the way around it is to

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    1. Re:I have the workaround! by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's quite simple actually. Go to wikipedia's article on spaces and copypaste U+2060 ('word joiner') into the middle of the domain. Then carefully remove the brackets around it (you will be able to tell it's there because you will have to use left/right arrow keys twice to get past it). Now the resulting text won't trip facebook's filter.

    2. Re:I have the workaround! by frieko · · Score: 1

      Actually it appears that the way around it is to post it to Slashdot. I just changed my status and it wasn't censored.

    3. Re:I have the workaround! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      42^3, that is very cool. Thanks for pointing out that article on spaces.

      I don't have any mod points, but if you're coming through Chicago anytime soon, let me know and I'll buy you a polish and a beer.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:I have the workaround! by StreetStealth · · Score: 1

      Or you could do what I do, and just type 8ugm3n0+.c0m.

      The only side effect is that people tend to think I'm under the influence of v1c0d1n and x4n4x.

      --
      Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
  8. another "Do more evil" clone? by peter303 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The bigger they get, the more arrogant they get.

    1. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the facebook way to say "mine is bigger than yours!"

    2. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by StackedCrooked · · Score: 1

      So suppose you started a company. The bigger it would get...

    3. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by Bieeanda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since when has Facebook been about anything but data mining and user tracking?

    4. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by globaljustin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      another "Do more evil" clone?

      Yes. If you've looked at their redesign that will be implemented soon, you know what I mean. They basically split the functions of the site across 4 or 5 pages instead of just the one, so now you have to click more to see the same amount of content. The whole redesign is made to get more page views of their ads.

      I hate it, but I'm old. I remember when the internet and the WWW came to suburbia back in the mid 90s. Almost all internet sites were free, if you had the hardware to access them, just like facebook.com is right now. It's free.

      Somehow, someone who has no understanding of economics managed to convince themselves that facebook.com was worth hundreds of millions for investment. It's not. It never will be. It's a free website that has some cool widgets and lets you keep up with your friends. It's not like they have a patent on social networking.

      Here's what will happen. Facebook will have to continually make its interface more intrusive in order to please their investors and advertisers. As that happens, they will loose users. Eventually another site will pop up that has the same functionality as facebook.com only without all the BS. People will begin to use it, and the internet circle of life continues.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    5. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by rhizome · · Score: 1

      "The older they get, the cuter they ain't."

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    6. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 0, Troll

      There are ads on Facebook?!

      EVENTUALLY the business dorks will figure out the cycle. What are we, up to about fifteen years now? They're a little slow, but the come around eventually.

    7. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by edmicman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right - I much preferred the previous layout where everything was on a single page and you had to scroll *forever* to find something. The old (current) design was beginning to look like MySpace with badges of flair; the new design helps fix that.

    8. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow, someone who has no understanding of economics managed to convince themselves that friendsreunited.co.uk was worth millions for investment. It's not. It never will be. It's a free website that lets you keep up with your friends. It's not like they have a patent on social networking.

      Here's what will happen. Friends reunited will have to continually make its interface more intrusive in order to please their investors and advertisers. As that happens, they will loose users. Eventually another site will pop up that has the same functionality as friendsreunited.co.uk only without all the BS.

      Yep, it's already happened. Every time you click on anything in friendsreunited.co.uk a huge pop-under window appears. The site is unusable.

    9. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1

      If you think Facebook makes it's money by advertising you are out of your mind.

      Consumer data models and trends anyone?

    10. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      heh...I never accused facebook.com of making money

      you can call it trends research, etc. but it's all based on clicks through their little links on the left side. Yes they tailor those links to keywords in your page, but it's all about clicks, pure and simple.

      As an aside, I just have to express how hilarious it is to watch advertisers invent new, effusive language to describe their function. "branding" "trends research" etc...it's all just sales. Putting asses in the seats.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    11. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1

      It isn't clicks on the little ads. It's looking at the content of pages and matching it to the weblogs. The models created from that data are very real and very effective.

      You can call it hilarious, but there is a huge difference between sales and marketing.

    12. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by fyoder · · Score: 1

      Facebook will have to continually make its interface more intrusive in order to please their investors and advertisers. As that happens, they will loose users.

      Normally misuse of loose makes my hackles rise, but this almost works. However, at this point I think it would take a lot to shake facebook users loose. They stick to it like aphids to cotton candy (never take your cotton candy into a swarm of aphids).

      Eventually another site will pop up that has the same functionality as facebook.com only without all the BS. People will begin to use it

      It already has, and here it is. Unfortunately I no longer have enough hair to cover my entire forehead and one eye, which appears to be a membership requirement for males.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    13. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by fpgaprogrammer · · Score: 1

      You probably need to be in your Junior year to take Ethics at Harvard...

    14. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      another "Do more evil" clone?

      they will loose users.

      I too have found that many of the users on Facebook are loose!

    15. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by edalytical · · Score: 1

      Which is why we need free software social networking. I'm ready to contribute if anyone is interested -- even more so if we can get a research grant.

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    16. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      Somehow, someone who has no understanding of economics managed to convince themselves that facebook.com was worth hundreds of millions for investment. It's not. It never will be. It's a free website that has some cool widgets and lets you keep up with your friends. It's not like they have a patent on social networking.

      And somehow people have become convinced that Facebook == Social Networking. I guess most people are seeing a community effect from an online source for the first time and go "Whoa! Magic!" Of course, an online community differs very little from any other community, except in the potential anonymity of its members. Nothing particularly spectacular, but apparently it's very addicting. My coworker last night spent his entire shift surfing Facebook on his Blackberry. Personally, I still don't get the number of people that refuse to accept the fact that any website that requires you to sign up to see content is almost certainly a scam.

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    17. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I think the proper spelling of the phrase is "do know evil".

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    18. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree.

      I'm one of those that has kept clicking on the "take me back to the old facebook" link.

      What the facebook developers don't yet understand is that they aren't infallible and that it is possible for them to change their web site in ways that users don't like and will use it less because of.

    19. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by gnarlyhotep · · Score: 1

      the internet circle of life continues.

      At what point do the investors and/or advertisers get eaten by a lion? Please tell me at least one of them gets eaten by a lion...

    20. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      clown farts

    21. Re:another "Do more evil" clone? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Yes. If you've looked at their redesign that will be implemented soon, you know what I mean. They basically split the functions of the site across 4 or 5 pages instead of just the one, so now you have to click more to see the same amount of content. The whole redesign is made to get more page views of their ads.

      Does any advertiser pay by pageviews anymore?

  9. Strange Definition of Abuse by eldavojohn · · Score: 1

    It's great that they're trying to reduce abuse but I had no problem posting about YouVacuousCoffeeNosedMaloderousPervert.com on my FaceBook profile. They sure do have a strange definition of what is & isn't abusive.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  10. Freedom is an illusion... by H0p313ss · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ... freedom of speech doubly so.

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    1. Re:Freedom is an illusion... by rah1420 · · Score: 4, Informative

      At the risk of getting the hook set in my mouth, I am going to dive in and take the big risk that you know that "Freedom of Speech" only refers to the law that Congress can't abridge it.

      I'm sure you realize that it doesn't at all stop private people or entities from abridging "freedom of speech" (sometimes called 'freedom of speach') all they want?

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    2. Re:Freedom is an illusion... by H0p313ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you know that "Freedom of Speech" only refers to the law that Congress can't abridge it.

      A valid point in the U.S. but what does it mean to the majority of humanity?

      :-)

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    3. Re:Freedom is an illusion... by belmolis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      you know that "Freedom of Speech" only refers to the law that Congress can't abridge it.

      Not true at all. You're thinking of the First Amendment. The First Amendment is a particular feature of the US Constitution and doesn't have any legal force in other countries or apply to non-governmental entities in the United States. (By virtue of the 14th Amendment, it applies to the States as well as to the federal government.) "Freedom of Speech", on the other hand, is a value that exists independent of the US Constitution. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the constitutions of many other countries and in such documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of which reads:

      Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

    4. Re:Freedom is an illusion... by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      It's more than that. Because Congress cannot abridge it, and there is no lawmaking power with far-reaching powers beyond that of Congress, it is implied that the freedom of speech is more powerful than any attempt to quash it. However, this only rings true when it is actually exercised and people stand up for it.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    5. Re:Freedom is an illusion... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The First Amendment is a particular feature of the US Constitution and doesn't have any legal force in other countries or apply to non-governmental entities in the United States.

      But at one time, the First Amendment, along with the other liberties guaranteed by our Constitution, were a shining example to those who sought their own liberty while living under authoritarian rule. In my lifetime, America was really a beacon of liberty for the world.

      Thanks to fearmongering and the heavy-handed lovers of power, those days are gone, probably forever. We're not the "shining city on the hill" that Reagan spoke of anymore. In fact, he was one of the ones who started the ball rolling down that very hill.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Freedom is an illusion... by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you realize that it doesn't at all stop private people or entities from abridging "freedom of speech" (sometimes called 'freedom of speach') all they want?

      The government is nothing but the representative of a collection of private parties. If you believe private parties have the freedom to violate your rights, you should not flinch if they collectively appoint representatives in congress to violate your rights on their behalf. In fact the bill of rights should strike you as an absurdity.

      The founding fathers did not believe human rights are created or destroyed by legal decrees.

      By that theory the American colonies had no right to independence in the first place, since legally colonists did not have any rights save what the King in his generosity pleased himself to grant from time to time.

      Your position that private people have the right to abridge each others rights "all they want" flies in the face of the most important principles the Nation was founded on.

      The creation of the United States was nothing more than an attempt to correct a wrong.

      By your way of thinking congress does not enact statutes to prevent or correct wrongs, but statues are written in order to CREATE wrongs.

      As if the nation is founded on the ideal that sovereign people would collectively work together and elect a congress in order to create wrongs. And the bill of rights is nothing but a document to limit what kind of wrongs congress is permitted to get away with.

      bottom line, your rights are inalienable and exist because you are a human being, not because of what some law says. And what a private party does might be legal but that doesn't mean it can't be wrong.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    7. Re:Freedom is an illusion... by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Wow... moderated into the stone age? How exactly was that offtopic?

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    8. Re:Freedom is an illusion... by n+dot+l · · Score: 1

      At the risk of getting the hook set in my mouth, I am going to dive in and take the big risk that you know that "Freedom of Speech" only refers to the law that Congress can't abridge it.

      And that puts an interesting spin on what politicians mean when they say they want to privatize and deregulate everything because the government is just so bloated and inefficient.

    9. Re:Freedom is an illusion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is facebook's site. If they want to block it, let them. If it is that much a bother to enough people, they will jump ship and go to something else. And as far as the "majority of humanity" goes, facebook is a US-based site so of course someone is going to bring the Constitution into play as well as correct the other poster's assumption that nobody can prevent Freedom of Speech.

    10. Re:Freedom is an illusion... by IronChef · · Score: 1

      I am getting tired of the "freedom of speach" typo too, and I would like to encourage everyone to switch to the newer and edgier "freadom of speech."

  11. Not true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just updated my current status to "bugmenot.com" and posted a note with the title and content of "bugmenot.com" and both got through fine.

    Maybe Facebook saw this post and did some fast damage control.

    1. Re:Not true? by Alexius · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It failed for me, so I tested it and took a screen shot, and posted that to Facebook:

      http://photos-320.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sf2p/v336/183/39/578793320/n578793320_854188_1264.jpg

      --
      `Lex - Find Me Here: Text Appeal
    2. Re:Not true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wrote a long note about BugMeNot and facebook's censorship, and it posted just fine.

      An hour later (now), I checked facebook and my published note has vanished. Gone without a trace. No warning, no e-mails, nothing, it's just not there. I'm putting up another note about censorship (without using the BugMeNot phrase this time) to see what happens.

      Regardless of what happens, I will be cancelling my facebook account by the end of next week. This is absolutely ridiculous.

    3. Re:Not true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it works now. I guess they changed it.

  12. Fortunately, "BugMeNot" isn't blocked. by MostAwesomeDude · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So all of you with Facebook accounts, change your status, write a note, make a group. Do something to get people noticing the existence of BugMeNot. It's a great tool, and the admins of Facebook are being dicks by blocking it.

    --
    ~ C.
    1. Re:Fortunately, "BugMeNot" isn't blocked. by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      BugMeNot: it's dot com!

    2. Re:Fortunately, "BugMeNot" isn't blocked. by PIBM · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The best thing for those with a facebook account would be to do nothing. Let facebook die of a slow, painfull death. =)

    3. Re:Fortunately, "BugMeNot" isn't blocked. by avronius · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thank you Homestar!

  13. Comminity vs. just facebook. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Just as many people who are ProChoice and will never have an abortion, or even advocate that anyone should. It is more about principal then actuality. It is about the rights of the site owners, if they want a login page and not have full anonymous access that is their choice. The Old BBS's of the 80's and 90's almost all required you to create a login account and sometimes call verified you back. BugMeNot is an attempt to bypass the website owners will to use the site. As well it also has logins for many Paid sites getting into the companies profit. So they may block it for the principal that they don't want people to use sites against the owners will.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Comminity vs. just facebook. by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's their prerogative, but it's kind of ridiculous to expect somebody that just needs to read one answer on one occasion to have to create a log in.

      It's not like sites covered by bugmenot are typically pay sites anyways, most of them just have the arrogance to think that somebody is going to come back after being treated like that.

      As far as I'm concerned it's perfectly understandable why sites that allow posting would require a log in to post. But to require a log in to read free articles is a bit tough to stomach.

      So, I just don't go to those sites. They could have had a couple extra views of the ads, but instead they get nothing at all.

      Commercial sites are a completely different manner, and I think most of them have rules about log in sharing.

    2. Re:Comminity vs. just facebook. by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      BugMeNot is an attempt to bypass the website owners will to use the site. As well it also has logins for many Paid sites getting into the companies profit. So they may block it for the principal that they don't want people to use sites against the owners will.

      The counter argument being that if the authentication were ACTUALLY USEFUL, NECESSARY, AND VALUABLE TO THE END USER, there would be no sharing it. Can you imagine sharing your password if the site were pay-per-click, for example?

      If I can sign up to your site as 'fred@flintstone.com' and get everything I wanted/needed from it, why the hell did you ask me for an email address?

      Likewise, if I can 'share' the account of some other registered user, why should I sign up for one of my own?

    3. Re:Comminity vs. just facebook. by superphreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nice point... except that they (FB) are not blocking bugmenot, they are allegedly blocking people from saying "bugmenot.com," and bugmenot.com doesn't list facebook, and facebook is free... so your point is...?

      --
      Evolution is a state-sponsored, state-protected religion.
    4. Re:Comminity vs. just facebook. by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      That is the email address that I usually sign up with.....

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    5. Re:Comminity vs. just facebook. by Whuffo · · Score: 3, Informative
      Being someone who ran a large BBS back in the olden days I can offer some insight into why we verified each new account.

      There were some significant expenses involved in supplying the service. An incoming phone line and high speed modem for each "node", rows of computers, file servers, networking - and all of this could only support a limited number of simultaneous users.

      What we were trying to stop were the people who would register several accounts in order to use more online time - preventing others from being able to log in. The whole point of verified user accounts was just that - to insure that the resources of the BBS were shared fairly.

      Things are different now; not many of us here remember when a good 9600 baud modem cost $1000. Multiply that by 25, then add the monthly charges for 25 phone lines, etc.

      We couldn't just "add more lines" to support every person who wanted to use the system for as long as they wanted, so limiting the amount of online time was necessary. Verified user accounts were there to insure that everyone got their share because some felt it was their right to take more for themselves.

      These days you can put up a website that does most of what a BBS did, support thousands of simultaneous users - and do it for far less than the cost of one of those modems. The sites that require registration (and don't verify that the registration is legitimate)- their motives are questionable at best. The information they're collecting has a very low signal to noise ratio due to services like Bug Me Not and the basic truth that most people fill those registration forms out with false information. Sometimes I suspect that those news sites require registration "because all the other news sites do it"...

    6. Re:Comminity vs. just facebook. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      the principal that they don't want people to use sites against the owners will.

      Yeah? Well, my "principal" (sic) is that anybody who figures out a way to thwart the "will" of any corporate entity that's got capitalization of more than a billion dollars is a hero in my book.

      Fuck Facebook. Jesus loves BugMeNot.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Comminity vs. just facebook. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      True however the small 1 node hobby BBS did the same things as well. It was more of an additude of the time. If you are going to use My Computer and hardware, I want to know who you are. Besides BBS's back in the day were made by local people so chances are you will actually meet them in real life.

      While I agree sites shouldn't need logins for most information now. However the person should still reserve the right to control what they know about the person who uses their computer.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  14. Good point, parent by Kludge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Allowing a single corporate entity to control your communication is a bad idea. I suggest this new thing called "email", which is offered by a large number of different providers, and not censored by most.

    1. Re:Good point, parent by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, if you want more immediate communication, there's XMPP, a similarly open standard for instant messaging. I run my own server, but quite a few people on my contacts list use Google's one.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Good point, parent by mini+me · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, email doesn't allow for passive communication like Facebook does. Until this oversight in the email system is resolved, we are stuck with services like Facebook.

    3. Re:Good point, parent by slarrg · · Score: 1

      Sure, good idea. That way a greater number of corporate entities can have an opportunity to censor your message if they're so inclined.

    4. Re:Good point, parent by XnavxeMiyyep · · Score: 1

      Or, you could use instant messaging. There are plenty of multichat clients, depending on your OS, that can handle AIM, MSN, Yahoo, Jabber, ICQ, etc. Just leave your client of choice up and running.

      --
      I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
    5. Re:Good point, parent by mini+me · · Score: 1

      Again, none of those allow passive communication. i.e. Joe can read the message I sent to Bob without explicitly sending it to Joe. A message board kind of thing would work, but they are so disjointed that Facebook-like services are the only realistic option.

    6. Re:Good point, parent by XnavxeMiyyep · · Score: 1

      You could have a work chatroom. Most IM clients support that, and you'd get instantaneous responses.

      --
      I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
  15. WTH? by nurb432 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    [Message Content Restricted]

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  16. New Technology by josephtd · · Score: 1

    And now would be a good time to start your transition to new and exciting methods of communication... like email!

  17. I don't see the problem here by Grishnakh · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What's the problem? Only a moron would use idiotic social networking sites like Facebook as a replacement for email. What the hell is wrong with today's young people anyway, that they're so happy to sign up to be serfs for corporate interests, and give up any privacy they ever had? Instant messaging, social networking sites are all corporate-controlled. Anything you do on there is subject to their rules, no matter how silly they may be. Anything you say can be seen by them. There is no expectation of privacy. If you want the freedom to say what you want, you have to use email. Except that today's stupid young people think that email is "old fashioned" and only for talking to "old" (over 30) people.

    1. Re:I don't see the problem here by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      What the hell is wrong with today's young people anyway,

      I am the age of the parents of today's young people. I can tell you what's wrong with them.

      Their parents smoked a insane amount of pot and binge drank before,during, and after they had them.

      the other side effect I am VERY HAPPY about... the growth hormones that all the kids ate over the past 2 decades.. It seems that every girl from age 16-25 have HUGE TITS compared to what was walking around in the 80's.. I am so happy for todays boys...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:I don't see the problem here by Piranhaa · · Score: 1

      And email isn't corporate controlled? It's true that email is more confidential than posting on someone's "wall", but why not send them a message? If you're talking about IM'ing unencrypted over corporate networks (ie at work) then yes, some webmail services are SSL encrypted, but what's to stop your employer to simply view screen dumps?

      If you're complaining about others/employers seeing your pictures, posts, status messages, etc. then simply block people NOT on your friends list from viewing your page and don't allow people on your list you don't know very very well. I deleted like 300 people whom I never talk to about a year after I went on there. If you don't take those measures, then you don't deserve privacy OR a job where employers base (part of) their descisions on your Facebook content...

    3. Re:I don't see the problem here by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I am the age of the parents of today's young people. I can tell you what's wrong with them.

      I'm 34, so I'm not old enough to be their parents' age, but I'm not young enough to relate with them either. I also don't have any kids.

      the other side effect I am VERY HAPPY about... the growth hormones that all the kids ate over the past 2 decades.. It seems that every girl from age 16-25 have HUGE TITS compared to what was walking around in the 80's.. I am so happy for todays boys...

      Those aren't from hormones; those are breast implants. Parents these days are regularly getting them for their 16-year-old girls now. If anything, you should feel sorry for today's boys. After they marry these boob-jobbed bimbos, they're going to find out (about 10 years after the implants were put in) that they sag really bad, and look really nasty and unnatural. They look nice and perky when they're new, but they don't age well.

    4. Re:I don't see the problem here by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I didn't read TFA, but who said you have to use your employers' email account?

      No, email is not corporate controlled to the level that MySpace, Facebook, AIM, etc. are. It's easy to get free email accounts, email accounts from various providers, or even set up your own server with sendmail or postfix and do it yourself. In addition, it's pretty easy to use GPG to encrypt your email. Let's see you do that on Facebook.

      If you're complaining about others/employers seeing your pictures, posts, status messages, etc. then simply block people NOT on your friends list from viewing your page and don't allow people on your list you don't know very very well.

      And why post your life for anyone to see in the first place? What makes you think anyone gives a shit about your latest random thoughts or photos?

    5. Re:I don't see the problem here by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, I don't see the problem. If you want to post your latest random thoughts or photos up for all your supposed friends to look at, make your own webpage. If you're going to use someone else's service, you're subject to their terms and conditions, no matter how ridiculous they may be. Honestly, it wouldn't bother me if FB banned the use of the word "myspace". Their site, their rules.

      "Next iteration of posting in forums"? You've got to be kidding me. It's just a stupid site for dumb kids to waste their time on, doing nothing useful. If I want to communicate with like-minded people on some subject, say, solar energy, this is what forums dedicated to specific topics are for. I can go look for a solar energy forum, and talk to people there about it. If I want help fixing a problem on my car, I can find a forum about that brand of car and talk to others who have had the same problem. If I want to talk to people about bird-watching, I'm sure there's forums dedicated to that. Why on earth would I go to Facebook, which has no focus on anything except photos of people getting drunk?

      FB and Myspace are for the generation of ADHD-addled kids who think it's somehow useful to be interrupted by text messages every 30 seconds.

    6. Re:I don't see the problem here by bucky0 · · Score: 1

      What's the problem? Only a moron would use idiotic social networking^H free hosting site like Facebook^H Tripod as a replacement for email^H web hosting. What the hell is wrong with today's young people anyway, that they're so happy to sign up to be serfs for corporate interests, and give up any privacy they ever had? Instant messaging, social networking sites^H ISPs and hosting sites are all corporate-controlled. Anything you do on there is subject to their rules, no matter how silly they may be. Anything you say can be seen by them. There is no expectation of privacy. If you want the freedom to say what you want, you have to use email. Except that today's stupid young people think that email^H self-hosting is "old fashioned" and only for talking to "old" (over 30) people.

      I also think it's deliciously ironic that you use Mailbank/netidentity to host your personal email. Netidentity is also a company, no?

      I don't get why the hell people get so worked up about people using facebook more and more. There's tons of reasons to use it. If you don't want to, that's fine, but the ridiculous vitriol by some people just confounds me.

      also:

      Except that today's stupid young people think that email is "old fashioned" and only for talking to "old" (over 30) people.

      "Young" people don't give a fuck one way or another. Maybe you can't see the utility of facebook/other social networking sites, but there _is_ a lot of it. I can give a prime example.

      I studied abroad in brazil. I'm an american, and I met a really nice girl from paris. We hit it off and were friends, and when we parted ways, she told me that her email was firstname.lastname@some.domain. Problem is, I could never get her email address right (I knew her name by sound, but couldn't figure out how to spell it). Later, I got her name from another friend, but her address was linked to her University and she had graduated since then, so it was a dead end.

      A year and a half later, facebook opened up to france, and she joined the site. She looks at the group for the international students in brazil, found me, got my email and called me that day.

      We've met up in paris twice since then and it was awesome. Can you see the usefullness I got out of it then?

      --

      -Bucky
    7. Re:I don't see the problem here by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      ... and USENET is gone now too.

      No, USENET is NOT gone. Stop saying that.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    8. Re:I don't see the problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those aren't from hormones; those are breast implants. Parents these days are regularly getting them for their 16-year-old girls now. If anything, you should feel sorry for today's boys. After they marry these boob-jobbed bimbos, they're going to find out (about 10 years after the implants were put in) that they sag really bad, and look really nasty and unnatural. They look nice and perky when they're new, but they don't age well.

      The big REAL ones are like that too. Posting anon so my wife won't kill me.

    9. Re:I don't see the problem here by lgw · · Score: 1

      You may be right, but also the GPP was correct. The onset of puberty has moved 2-3 years earlier than in our generation. Something is quite fucked up in the biochemistry of today's youth. Some blame plastic leachates. I lean towards bovine growth hormones. No one really knows, but it's a bit scary. Makes for nice scenery, though.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  18. Simple by BLAG-blast · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Stop using facebook. You've got plenty of other choices...

    --
    M0571y H@rml355.
    1. Re:Simple by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      Ooh, I know, let's all use MySpace!

  19. Are you sure? by Psychotic_Wrath · · Score: 0
    --

    Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?
    1. Re:Are you sure? by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      Sadly you can't view other people's status without an account (I guess). I guess I'll just pop over to BugMeNot and...

      Facebook isn't even listed on BugMeNot, as they requested that logins for Facebook be blocked.

      DAMMIT!

      Seems a bit ironic, I can't verify that Facebook isn't blocking BugMeNot because they requested BugMeNot block them...

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    2. Re:Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Checked Slashdot for giggles and assurances, its barred from being listed as well. :)

    3. Re:Are you sure? by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      I can understand why BugMeNot would not list Slashdot and (to an extent) Facebook.

      You don't need a user account to browse Slashdot or even post on Slashdot. There's only two reasons you'd create an account on Slashdot: to post as a non-AC, and to customize the various tweakable bits.

      Facebook I can sort of see. Creating an anonymous profile kind of defeats the purpose and has the potential to be abused by spammers. (Not that forbidding BugMeNot accounts really solves that last one.)

      Facebook is an interesting case, though. As much as I can understand why BugMeNot shouldn't create random Facebook accounts, the fact that you can't view any of the content without creating an account is exactly what BugMeNot was created to work around.

      Whatever. It's not like it's important: it's Facebook, after all. :)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  20. honestly by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    there is no reason why they cannot do this. it is their website, their policy. of course they will piss some people off, of course they went ahead with this filter fully aware it would bother some people

    on the flip side, you are not a zombie craven to facebook. it is entirely in your power to use some other service. facebook is not the end all be all.

    there was geocities, tripod, xanga, friendster, myspace, and now facebook. it is time for you to simply discover the next social networking app in a long line of apps that come and go every couple of years

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:honestly by Osurak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course they *can* do it. The issue is whether they *should* do it.

    2. Re:honestly by Rakishi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They can do whatever they want. Likewise we can complain and make fun of them for what they do all we want. If nothing else it lets others know about what the companies policies are and sometimes it may even make the company change their policies.

      Companies are run by humans and sometimes they make mistakes or underestimate how much people don't like something. If you don't let them know then how do expect them to know? Magic? Telepathic elves trapped in the basement?

    3. Re:honestly by fermion · · Score: 1

      Facebook is no longer a college thing. It is a place where tweens chat and high school kids hook up. What does this matter? They can no longer play fast and loose. If it is going they are pretty much going to have to create restrictions that are not cool. If we are going to have a place to go, then there will have to compromises.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re:honestly by Jay+L · · Score: 5, Funny

      I, personally, agree 100% with circletimessquare when he says:

      there is no reason why they cannot do this. it is their website, their policy.

      But some would beg to differ. For a counterpoint from a simpler era, let's turn to a user named "circletimessquare", back in early September, 2008, who wrote:

      shun chrome. i don't care if its the best thing since sliced bread. the problem is what it represents in terms of power and dominance in the hands of one company. that's bad for everyone

      Clearly, the debate over corporate dominance has bitterly divided friends, families, and even individuals.

    5. Re:honestly by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      It is their right to act like stupid cunts on their own site. It is my (and yours if you wish) right to bitch about it on slashdot.

      Just like it was Google's right to put an evil EULA on their browser and our right to bitch about it. Guess what? They changed the EULA. Don't like somebody's corporate policy? Bitch about it on the front page of a site as powerful as this one and they'll change it.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    6. Re:honestly by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      You have a right to something and also have the actions provided by that right be bad for everyone. Certain controversial topics like easily available guns or religious fundamentalism come into play here.

    7. Re:honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, don't, really, need, to use so many commas.

    8. Re:honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they *can* do it. The issue is whether they *should* do it.

      they can do whatever they want. It's their site and they own all the content that you put on there. If they decide to throw away some of their own stuff (the stuff you created and think that you own) that's their prerogative.

      The real question is should you be using facebook (or other social networks) at all.

    9. Re:honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      circletimessquare is a jackass.

    10. Re:honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the positive side, it looks like he's finally stopped making a low-budget HDV filipino horror movie in the NYC area.

      That alone might have changed the man's perspective. Give him some credit. :)

    11. Re:honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is time for you to simply discover the next social networking app in a long line of apps that come and go every couple of years

      ...and convince all of your friends to switch to it, or it's useless to you.

    12. Re:honestly by www.inkampus.com · · Score: 1

      Of course they *can* do it. The issue is whether they *should* do it.

      Facebook is a free site. It is also a private site. Why should they not block a site which allows members to skip registration? Atleast this way the total number of "registered" members on facebook would seem high.

      http://inkampus.com/

      --
      New Site for College Students: www.inkampus.com
  21. who the fuck? by DerWulf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    who the fuck cares? The amount of utterly trivial "stories" on slashdot is unbelievably high at the moment. Could the editors please put a stop to this?

    --

    ___
    No power in the 'verse can stop me
    1. Re:who the fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Stop reading slashdot. You've got plenty of other choices...

    2. Re:who the fuck? by BobMcD · · Score: 0

      Stop reading slashdot. You've got plenty of other choices...

      PWNED!

    3. Re:who the fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you new here?

    4. Re:who the fuck? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Could the editors please put a stop to this?

      Aren't the editors the ones who post the stories? If they feel that facebook is this important, it doesn't matter how many of us disagree; we'll be subjected to this crap anyway. Just searching for slashdot stories tagged 'facebook' gives a very long list, and an indication of how much people seem to value it around here.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    5. Re:who the fuck? by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's this thing called the "firehose", where you can actually VOTE STORIES UP OR DOWN. Of course, it doesn't work in IE6 but then again, what does?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    6. Re:who the fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also couldn't send a link for Girl Talks new album because it has been reported as "abusive". That's ...music (copyrighted albeit, but *sounds*). But the ad showing the hot girl and degrading me with both my age and relationship status informing me how for the low rate of X.XX I too can turn that all around ... that's not abusive. That's kosher. Who the fuck cares? I fucking care dude.

    7. Re:who the fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People here use IE??? WTF

    8. Re:who the fuck? by mkiwi · · Score: 1
      Do you really expect people who use a food as their user name to do a good job?

      Oh, wait....

  22. People still use bugmenot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't needed it in a while. Granted, all my news is gleaned from Google, Fark and /. headlines, but still, I haven't had to use it to read a quoted article in a while. What news sites still require it?

    I do have Mozilla set to accept all cookies for session only -- could that be it? They think they're setting their tracking cookie, then it's gone next time, so I'm a perpetual new user, and never someone to nag about registering?

  23. Now "bugmenot" is overloaded by Animats · · Score: 1

    Well, their traffic is up. I can ping them, but HTTP connections are timing out.

  24. corepirate nazis block USers from reality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    many folks almost never look up anymore anyway. greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & the notion of prosperity, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

    http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
    http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE

    is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
    http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

    dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

    the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-do

  25. Be a jerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tiny URLs and other such services. Start a war, like the one that brought down digg.

    Stand together and fight censorship!

  26. News Flash by Safiire+Arrowny · · Score: 1

    Lots of messaging systems filter links to sites.
    For instance MSN Messenger will outright reject any message with 'mediafire.com' in it.

    The answer is to just not use Facebook. Ever.

  27. Begin the obfuscation by greg1104 · · Score: 1

    Right, because simple text blocks always are enough to prevent people from sending dicey messages. That stopped the spammers, right?

    If you'll excuse me, I have to check out this bugm3n0t.c0m site, I hear Facebook just Streisanded it into higher popularity. (What? Oh, that's been a verb since 1987 actually)

  28. Freed of SP**CH! by retech · · Score: 0

    That like so sucks that u kn0w, ur fr33dom of sp33ch has been taken away from U!

  29. You poor unfortunate soul. In pain in need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plentyoffish.com doesn't let me mention okcupid.com. I'm gonna complain on slashdot.

  30. So? by Swift+Kick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From your 'blog':

    "... it's appalling for Facebook to block anyone from even mentioning the site -- it's plain and simple censorship, and it's unacceptable!"?

    Why is it 'appalling' and 'unacceptable'? You do not own Facebook, and when you created an account, you pretty much waived your rights. If I recall correctly, Facebook is still a privately-owned company. They can block whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want.

    If you don't like this policy, familiarize yourself with the Terms of Service before you sign up to similar services.

    You're always free to build your own alternative to Facebook; until then, you want to play in their playground, you play by their rules.

    --
    "We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
    1. Re:So? by city · · Score: 1

      You do not own Facebook

      Yes very insightful.

      Facebook is still a privately-owned company

      What does this have to do with anything? hint:nothing

      If you don't like this policy, familiarize yourself with the Terms of Service

      Wow, thanks for the gratuitous link, that really clears things up.

      You're always free to build your own alternative to Facebook

      I think their point is that they like using Facebook, yet find the decision to mass censor thier users in poor taste. Maybe if they voice their opinion on the issue then they can facilitate a discussion about the ever increasing flippant practice of censorship.

      --
      I am a v1ral sig. Plse c0py me and h3lp me spread. Thank y0u?
    2. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed, if he wanted to be taken seriously this article should have ended with him promptly closing his account.

    3. Re:So? by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Why is it 'appalling' and 'unacceptable'? You do not own Facebook, and when you created an account, you pretty much waived your rights. If I recall correctly, Facebook is still a privately-owned company. They can block whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want.

      Since when have companies suddenly gained the right to censor everyone's speech on their property just because they are company? If I go to Disney world, can I not mention any other cartoon themed parks like six flags while there or if I do will I be silenced by the Disney World Censorship squad?

      Sure, companies might like their employees not to mention their competitors, but the only ones that they can reasonably demand that behavior of are paid actors in their ad slots. We kinda think that it's o.k. with cussing and what not. That's one thing with a very short list that generally should be avoided in most business communications be it verbal or written in any form. Talking about for or against other companies though shouldn't just be restricted, automatically while you are at work.

      The general rule of thumb is just don't say that you work at the company, and the company will deny that you exist. If you start shouting that you work there and bad mouth the company, then come on expect some administrative action against you.

    4. Re:So? by k1e0x · · Score: 1

      From your 'blog':

      "... it's appalling for Facebook to block anyone from even mentioning the site -- it's plain and simple censorship, and it's unacceptable!"?

      Why is it 'appalling' and 'unacceptable'? You do not own Facebook, and when you created an account, you pretty much waived your rights. If I recall correctly, Facebook is still a privately-owned company. They can block whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want.

      If you don't like this policy, familiarize yourself with the Terms of Service before you sign up to similar services.

      You're always free to build your own alternative to Facebook; until then, you want to play in their playground, you play by their rules.

      You are exactly right, the free market requires that we allow them to create any kind of stupid rule they want. I don't like their rule.. but I am powerless to tell them they MUST not do this. At the very best I suggest people find a new social networking site. Someone else with less evil rules will want your business I'm sure.

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    5. Re:So? by fyoder · · Score: 1

      You're always free to build your own alternative to Facebook

      Easier still, just put up a personal web site somewhere. You can stick what you want on it, and old friends (and enemies) can look you up with a search engine.

      Granted, it would lack some of the social networking elements, wouldn't notify you of friends birthdays, and linking to others with similar interests would take a bit more effort. But if you want to be spoon fed by a large corporation, you're kind of stuck eating what they dish out.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    6. Re:So? by Swift+Kick · · Score: 1

      Facebook is still a privately-owned company

      What does this have to do with anything? hint:nothing

      Not exactly. Privately-held companies are not subject to the same level of regulations as publicly-owned or government-subsidized companies. This means that while they can't do whatever they want, they have quite a bit more leeway when it comes to establishing and enforcing policies that some would equate to 'censorship'.

      Yes, you can whine about it all you want, but they have the right to say "No, you will not link/advertise/mention any sites that we don't like, and you'll live with it" and enforce this policy as needed.

      Whether it's in 'poor taste' or not is irrelevant. People need to understand that what they might perceive as their 'rights' is entirely subjective depending on the situation. In this case, they have *no* rights other than what's explicitly granted in the terms of service that they agree upon creating an account.

      Simple as that.

      --
      "We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
    7. Re:So? by Swift+Kick · · Score: 1

      Since when have companies suddenly gained the right to censor everyone's speech on their property just because they are company? If I go to Disney world, can I not mention any other cartoon themed parks like six flags while there or if I do will I be silenced by the Disney World Censorship squad?

      Companies have certain leeway when it comes to establishing and enforcing policies on their property.
      If when purchasing tickets to get into Disney World or Disney Land, they gave you a 'contract' stating that they could restrict what you could say on their property at your leisure before, then you have the option to say "No thanks, I'm going to Six Flags instead". If you decide to go in, then don't act surprised and outraged when you're walking around yelling "HEY MAN, SIX FLAGS IS AWESOME!" and they ask you to leave.

      Of course, this is an extreme example of a hypothetical situation, but they have the right to do this, and your purchase of a ticket would be your implicit agreement to follow their rules.

      Sure, companies might like their employees not to mention their competitors, but the only ones that they can reasonably demand that behavior of are paid actors in their ad slots. We kinda think that it's o.k. with cussing and what not. That's one thing with a very short list that generally should be avoided in most business communications be it verbal or written in any form. Talking about for or against other companies though shouldn't just be restricted, automatically while you are at work.

      If he was an employee, then things like this would fall under a different umbrella as far as the laws go. There are very specific laws and precedents concerning free speech in the workplace, which can be applied either way depending on the situation and the company. However, none of those apply here because a) he's not an employee, and b) he agreed to the terms of service when he opened an account, which say they can and will control what you may or may not post if and when they see fit.

      That's why claiming 'censorship' in a case like this is a bit silly.

      --
      "We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
    8. Re:So? by city · · Score: 1

      I agree that it's not the users right, but that's not the issue here (in fairness it might have been some of the issue, I didnt read TFslashdottedA). When users like the blogger took such an issue with their policies, they would be stupid not to listen. From what I've read it looks like people are able to post it now without censorship. So while you may not have got my point, I guess the Facebook did...

      --
      I am a v1ral sig. Plse c0py me and h3lp me spread. Thank y0u?
    9. Re:So? by tm2b · · Score: 1

      If I go to Disney world, can I not mention any other cartoon themed parks like six flags while there or if I do will I be silenced by the Disney World Censorship squad?

      Analogy fail - communication on web sites is persistent. A better one would be, you can not erect signs about any other cartoon themed parks, which is entirely appropriate.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    10. Re:So? by www.inkampus.com · · Score: 1

      You're always free to build your own alternative to Facebook

      Shameless plug here: If you are a college student and looking for a similar site, please have a look at: http://www.inkampus.com/. It is completely free and exclusive to college students.

      --
      New Site for College Students: www.inkampus.com
    11. Re:So? by malcomreynolds · · Score: 1

      Why is it "stupid" that a site owner has the right to decide who accesses their site and how?

    12. Re:So? by k1e0x · · Score: 1

      That is what I said, they can do it if they like, but I feel that censorship is a stupid idea.

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    13. Re:So? by Walter+Carver · · Score: 1

      Yes, I see your point, if you don't like it don't use it. But by winning about it other people notice. If it bugs enough people then Facebook will change it. And thus he will be in part responsible for the change. People are already reporting that the word is not censored anymore.

  31. workaround by techmuse · · Score: 1

    type b u g m e n o t . c o m

    or moc.tonemgub (specify that it should be typed backwards)

    or, the first letters of:
    better understand great monstrosities explicating new otherworldly titrations
    plus a period
    plus the first letters of:
    commotion obfuscates mysteries

    1. Re:workaround by wraithguard01 · · Score: 1

      Or, if you are "one-three-three-seven" it could be:
      |3|_|6|\/|3|\|07.(0|\/|


      ... or something like that.

    2. Re:workaround by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      Or simply "ohtzrabg.pbz"

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
  32. Slowest News Day ... Ever by daveime · · Score: 1

    In other news, Slashdot won't let you say the words ****, **** or ****.

    Isn't it funny how all the best words are four letters long ?

  33. Unicode to the Rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But this is the world of Unicode we now live in.
    Î'ugÎoeeÎot.com will work, becasue the B M and N looking characters are Greek :3

  34. Is this just Viral Marketing? by Paeva · · Score: 1

    I've tested out putting bugmenot.com in Facebook status messages, and it works just fine... is this a change or has anyone above actually tried it out before posting? This smells of a fake news story to me. In any case, it's dead now.

  35. works for me by djdead · · Score: 3, Informative

    I just tried throwing "bugmenot.com" into my status update and it showed up on my wife's account.

    perhaps the best way to unblock things is to submit them to /.

    --
    -1: flamebait should really be -1: inciteful
    1. Re:works for me by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps the best way to advertise is to submit to Slashdot that somebody has blocked you. Interesting.

    2. Re:works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, and it looks like they did well with all the comments.

      ____

      Work smarter, not harder, with a tracking system

  36. Email FTW! by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

    Yet people insist on using Facebook as a replacement for email. It's nice how a company can forbid you from mentioning something isn't it? Nice thing about email is it's decentralized... nobody can censor me. Though the NSA still monitors me.

    1. Re:Email FTW! by Yacoby · · Score: 1

      With all this censorship going on, and the government monitoring everything, we may have to go back to sending letters. Oh the horror

  37. What Bug Me Not is by KingSkippus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just for reference for those who may also be blocked or otherwise can't get to it...

    You know all those sites where you have to register for a free account in order to access the content, sites where there's no real logical reason why you should have to register for an account except for the purpose of them harvesting your e-mail and personal information?

    What Bug Me Not does is provide usernames and passwords for registrations that people have created and uploaded to their site that you can use to access content without giving up your personal information.

    Perhaps a simple example would make it more clear. Let's say you go to some news site, and they insist that in order to access the site, you register for a free account. Of course, they want your name, address, and e-mail address. Even after you fill out your information, they drop you a registration e-mail that you have to validate. Then, and only then, you can access the site.

    If you don't want to go through these hoops or give up your information to them, what you can do instead is go to Bug Me Not. Punch in the site name, and voila, you get a username and password you can use to access the site that someone else has already registered. If one doesn't exist and you're motivated enough, you can register one (probably using a service like Mailinator) and provide the username and password so that the next schmoe that comes along that needs one will have it.

    There's also a nice Bug Me Not Firefox extension that will automagically fill in the information for you so that you don't even have to bother going to the web site.

    The only problem, as someone else mentioned, is that if you're behind a content filter, some companies tag Bug Me Not as a "hacking" site. (As is Mailinator, usually.) Obviously, some people have trouble with the concept of people who don't like giving out their personal e-mail addresses or other personal information just to read a frickin' article.

    1. Re:What Bug Me Not is by againjj · · Score: 1

      I have used http://spam.la/ for throwaway email addresses for registrations. Basically, they have a catch-all address for the domain, and you can then use the site to search for all emails sent to a given email address. Emails are discarded after some amount of time. Thus you can use a valid email for a one-time registration, without risk of getting lots of spam.

    2. Re:What Bug Me Not is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I can see why they would tag Bug Me Not as abusive. With Facebook, you'd pretty much get to log in anonymously. And then PM harass strangers or other account holders that way.

    3. Re:What Bug Me Not is by not-my-real-name · · Score: 1

      I just use abuse@ftc.gov (or something like that) as the throw away mail address. That way the middleman is eliminated. 1600 Pennsylvania Ave also works as a mailing address.

      --
      un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
    4. Re:What Bug Me Not is by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1
      Bugmenot allows site owners to opt-out if that type of problem applies. The summary says that Facebook.com is not listed on bugmenot, with a link to bugmenot showing

      This site has been barred from the bugmenot system.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    5. Re:What Bug Me Not is by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Obviously, some people have trouble with the concept of people who don't like giving out their personal e-mail addresses or other personal information just to read a frickin' article.

      Actually I'm not entirely comfortable with the notion of bugmenot, and I don't use it (though I understand those who do) and this doesn't apply to me. I definitely understand people who don't like giving out their personal email addresses and such to read an article, and I think sites that require it are stupid.

      That said, I think it's the site's right. If the NYT wants to require me to register to read their articles, then either I can register with them or go somewhere else for my news. If reading the article is not worth it to me to register, then I won't go to that site.

    6. Re:What Bug Me Not is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't want to go through these hoops or give up your information to them, what you can do instead is go to Bug Me Not.

      Well, that used to be true, until bugmenot allowed site owners to block account details for their sites. Now I don't bother with bugmenot at all.

  38. The also ban .. by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 2, Interesting

    bugmenot isnt the only site they refuse, they also have censored BME Zine .com

    im so glad facebook looks out for us.. i wonder if lemonparty is banned?

    --
    The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    1. Re:The also ban .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what-the-hell made me look up lemonparty. Why doesn't google have a "things that will make you kill yourself to unsee" filter? Maybe I'll learn before "2 grandpas, one cup" makes its rounds.

  39. Leet Your Way Around It by cenonce · · Score: 2, Funny

    8u9mEn0t.C0m

    or

    bu6m3n07.c0m

    or (really throw Facebook)

    |}|_|6|\/|3|\|0+.(0|\/|

    1. Re:Leet Your Way Around It by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Funny

      |}|_|6|\/|3|\|0+.(0|\/|

      Or, perhaps, the even more leet

      bugmenot (dot) com

    2. Re:Leet Your Way Around It by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      or the ever popular:
      BugMeNo"); DROP TABLES; ("t.com

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    3. Re:Leet Your Way Around It by smussman · · Score: 1

      I've also heard that tinyurl.com is a great place to go when you need to obscure URLs.

    4. Re:Leet Your Way Around It by cenonce · · Score: 1

      IAAL. I could never make it THAT simple! :)

  40. Is this article really crafty Spam? by searob · · Score: 1

    By submitting something that would controversial, even if it's not true, I think the submitter is just trying to get more page views. It seems to be working since the /. effect is slowing their sites down.

  41. "I tried [product name] and got a [shock]" by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 1

    I tried using CREST TOOTHPASTE and my Dentist told me not to anymore because it makes my teeth better and he can't work on 'em anymore because they are SO GOOD AFTER USING CREST TOOTHPASTE!

    I'm really not sure why CREST TOOTHPASTE is hated by so many Dentists.

    WHAT HAS YOUR EXPERIENCE BEEN LIKE???!!! (arrgh)

  42. ah, wordfilters by Johann+Public · · Score: 1

    reminds me of the days where just the mention of that pumpkin-pie loving boogeyman...what was his name now, Candlejack? would cause one's post to end spon

  43. Who cares about bugmenot.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares about bugmenot.com. Websites block those services all the time. Right with disposable e-mail account services and such.

  44. Tell me again... by Jawn98685 · · Score: 1

    ...why the hell I should care about anything that goes on at Facebook?

  45. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there an obvious reason I'm missing? Blocking bugmenot seems pretty random.

  46. just use the "F" word by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 1, Funny

    Instead of writing bugmenot.com, just say, "d00dz, ignore the word 'fuck' in the following and go to www dot bug fuck me fuck not fuck dot com d00dz!!"

    --
    McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
  47. Direct user to a page that refers to bugmenot.com by The+Assistant · · Score: 1

    If you can't send a user directly there, try sending them indirectly with a link to a page that tells them "where to go"!

  48. Access wants to be anonymous by Butisol · · Score: 1

    As surely as information wants to be free, access wants to be anonymous. A time is coming when a critical mass of people are fed up with this kind of bullshit and these business models based on building marketing profiles based on reams of user data come to an end. People are becoming more educated and fed up with this bullshit. Fuck Facebook.

    1. Re:Access wants to be anonymous by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      I think you are grossly overestimating the motives and wisdom of the average teenager.

      They are on facebook because it is cool to be there. Going anonymous rather defeats the point.

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
  49. ROT 13 App by mrgreenfur · · Score: 1

    ROT 13 encryption is so lightweight and trivial, but disguses the actual text. Someone should make a ROT13 Wall application that saves everything in rot13 and encrypts/decrypts automatically. Just write: JJJ.OHTZRABG.PBZ !

  50. ownership of information by drDugan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Facebook users seem so confused. Facebook, Inc. *OWNS* the website facebook.com - they can do basically whatever they want with it. tough cookies.

    the basic premise of physical property is that if you do work on something and make a new thing, then you own it. own meaning society agrees you have exclusive rights to control where and how a thing is used. we have all sorts of other modern day legal and monetary things that also mean you own things, like titles and deeds and receipts. largely, these ideas of ownership have spilled over into the information, too, and rightly so - controlling the use and application of certain information for limited time helps society a lot. many of the current out-of-control IP systems are a bit slanted toward big organizations, but still, all in all IP is a good thing.

    people own their personal connections to other people. you made them. an individual is the only person who know how another has treated them, how well they like them or hate them, if they would invite them over to a party next Friday. except, of course, if a person decided to give that information away by publishing it on a global communication system. once you do that, you don't own it any more, then it's like loose change on the sidewalk.

    so when you join facebook, you give away your information, your connections to other people. and this is valuable stuff - it's no wonder pie-in-the-sky valuations for facebook are over $15B and growing. If asked to sell the same information, people simply wouldn't, they would and have simply keep it private, and rightly so.

    that said, I made a facebook profile. I resisted it for years, but when we wanted to build a app to reach people, the facebook platform worked really well. I still see it as an inequitable exchange, though - Facebook makes explicit and public the information that is valuable to the individual when held private. In doing so, most users give far more to Facebook than they receive in return. it's just business.

    1. Re:ownership of information by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 1

      This is actually a fairly accurate assessment of how people treat the internet in general, and is becoming an increasingly difficult struggle to avoid for many services and IP holders. Basically, anytime a new type of service shows up on the internet, the users quickly become accustomed to using that service unhindered. Later, when it becomes clear that the service is being used to infringe upon the rights of others or is being abused to the point that the service itself suffers, changes are put into place to prevent these problems as a means of ensuring the service's long-term survival. Eventually, the user base gets pissed off because you are now directly affecting their ability to use your service as they see fit, like they have been able to up to now.

      The problem, is that many of us simply aren't educated enough to make the distinction between the corporate rule of the internet and real world. As such, we simply expect our rights between these two worlds to be seamlessly interchangeable.

      There needs to be some solution that makes this distinction easily understood by anyone. (children, teenagers, adults, the elderly, etc...)

      Until this happens, you will never quell the fighting over who has what rights where.

      --


      8==8 Bones 8==8
    2. Re:ownership of information by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 1

      Facebook users seem so confused. Facebook, Inc. *OWNS* the website facebook.com - they can do basically whatever they want with it. tough cookies.

      While it is true that facebook.com is privately owned and not legally required to avoid doing things that piss of it's users/customers, it may still be financially advisable. If a sufficient number of users do become upset for one reason or another that $15B will no longer be growing - quite the opposite.

      Of course, that's what I thought about things like DRM and WGA, and while they don't really accomplish much beyond pissing off consumers the companies which use them yet flourish.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
  51. Use TinyURL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So use TinyURL or some such tool to mask the URL.

    1. Re:Use TinyURL by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      goatse much?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:Use TinyURL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love you Larry! Will you half my chilled wren?

  52. No reason not to call 'em on it, either. by weston · · Score: 1

    there is no reason why they cannot do this. it is their website, their policy.

    Certainly true. However, there's no reason everybody shouldn't be mad at them for an abusive and manipulative policy like this.

    Facebook has a feedback/suggestions form:

    http://www.facebook.com/help.php?suggest

    I just sent 'em the following message:

    "Is the recent story on Slashdot true?

    http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/05/1741207

    The idea that facebook might redact or transform communications I send to my friends is pretty maddening, and certainly provides an incentive against using it for messages."

    1. Re:No reason not to call 'em on it, either. by Deanalator · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that I was unable to trigger the "some users have reported parts of this message as offensive" error with anything else. I tried with other urls, and I tried insulting facebook in the most vile ways my imagination could come up with, but the only way I found to get the notification was entering bugmenot.com in any part of my status.

  53. Bugmenot got useless... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...as soon as they allowed others to block sites from bugmenot.

    They killed the point of using them.
    Nowadays more and more sites are blocked on bugmenot.
    So much in fact that I uninstalled the Firefox* add-on.

    Does anyone know an alternative?
    Preferably one that's offshore and will not bow to any idiot sending them a complaint.

    * The Firefox spell checker does not know the word "Firefox"? WTF? ;)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:Bugmenot got useless... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "* The Firefox spell checker does not know the word "Firefox"? WTF? ;)"

      Hilarious. The iPhone will correct your capitalization for you so it's iPhone and iPod.

    2. Re:Bugmenot got useless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean an alternative way of denying the owner of material the right to decide who should be allowed access to their work? You don't have a right to the material that people spend hundreds if not thousands of hours working on and spend their own personal money out of their pockets to provide for free.

      As a bugmenot **victim** I find their behavior repulsive if not immoral and even illegal. If you don't want to register, then don't use the material I provide to you at no cost to you. (it costs *me* to provide it, by the way)

    3. Re:Bugmenot got useless... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      This is digital work. You do not lose a cent by them creating another copy of it. It's imaginary property.
      If you do not get the difference between physical work and digital work, tehn you can right fuck off and learn them first.
      One of those differences is, that digital works are available to everyone, as soon as they are available to one other person.
      The physical work is you, creating that digital work. And of course you can ask money for that work. But only once. Not for every copy of the *result* of your work.

      Besides: What does BugMeNot have to do with your digital material? You don't think that web logins provide some light version of DRM, do you?

      Try to change your business model, so you earn (*earn*, not get or take!) money for your performance. It's the only reasonable way it can work. Else you will live a not very happy life.

      I'm a game creator, and I'm right now developing a business model based on that assumption. It looks much healthier than that "I lose money when someone gets a copy for free" bullshit.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:Bugmenot got useless... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      >As a bugmenot **victim** I find their behavior repulsive if not immoral and even illegal. ...and that from an anonymous coward!

      >If you don't want to register, then don't use the material I provide to you at no cost to you. (it costs *me* to provide it, by the way)

      So your register contains about half fake names and half names of morons.

  54. Oh so I see how it works by Atrox666 · · Score: 1

    1) You have the right to free speech 2) Rule 1) does not apply if the venue is owned by the corporate masters 3) The corporate masters get to own everything with no associated responsibility 4) The government can call you a terrorist and then you don't even get any fake rights Maybe the government could set up a single line BBS in Utah as an online free speech zone.

  55. ohh man this is easy. by A+Wise+Guy · · Score: 0

    instead of bugmenot.com, just do this bug-me-not.com and tell them to remove the "-"

  56. WARNING hidden IFrame in the bugmenot link by onlysolution · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did anyone else notice the little iframe in the bugmenot page? That links back to the ttuttle.com site the original blog post is on? According to Chrome's nifty element inspector it's pointing back to http://www.ttuttle.net/396jdw.php, though it's obviously slashdotted by now so I have no idea what it's supposed to do or if that address is unique.

    1. Re:WARNING hidden IFrame in the bugmenot link by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      The same iframe appears no matter what site you look up on BugMeNot. I think it's safe to say that the submitter runs BugMeNot.com.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    2. Re:WARNING hidden IFrame in the bugmenot link by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The URL of the story poster (http://www.ttuttle.net/) and BugMeNot.com are owned by the same people.

      What's going on is that the people that run BugMeNot "astro-turfed" Slashdot, who when they read "censorship", immediately wet their pants all over the non-story without checking it out. Note that a number of Facebook users have said that they had no issues at all with Facebook and BugMeNot?

      Very good effort on BugMeNot's astro-turf effort. A+ in fact.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:WARNING hidden IFrame in the bugmenot link by kjones692 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know the story poster in person - we're both at CMU. The story is actually an attempt to send unique IP addresses to a certain site for an academic assignment. The details of the assignment are here. (Warning, PDF.)

      --

      Love the Third Amendment?
    4. Re:WARNING hidden IFrame in the bugmenot link by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 1

      Actually, we simply share the same web host, NearlyFreeSpeech.

    5. Re:WARNING hidden IFrame in the bugmenot link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No covering you ass now, Astro-Turf Boy. You got BUSTED, and you know it.

    6. Re:WARNING hidden IFrame in the bugmenot link by lpp · · Score: 1

      And they would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for you kids!!!

    7. Re:WARNING hidden IFrame in the bugmenot link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for you kids!!!

      and your meddling dog too.

    8. Re:WARNING hidden IFrame in the bugmenot link by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      They have replaced with iframe with a bogus tag and a 1x1 image, that or those things were already there and they just removed the iframe, guess they noticed an iframe is too obvious. Anyway... http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=954963&cid=24893539

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    9. Re:WARNING hidden IFrame in the bugmenot link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck cmu

    10. Re:WARNING hidden IFrame in the bugmenot link by daliman · · Score: 1

      Ahahaha, nice one. Let us know how he goes.

    11. Re:WARNING hidden IFrame in the bugmenot link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that is amazing. Smart kid.

      How many unique ips did he end up getting?

    12. Re:WARNING hidden IFrame in the bugmenot link by onlysolution · · Score: 1

      Brilliant! Though, judging by the page in that IFrame being down by the time I got to it, I imagine that that fellow got more than he bargained for.

    13. Re:WARNING hidden IFrame in the bugmenot link by malcomreynolds · · Score: 1

      I think your nick is fitting.

      You have the right to access everything on the Internet: 1

      No one has the right to decide who accesses their hard work: 0

      Pretty binary thinking.

    14. Re:WARNING hidden IFrame in the bugmenot link by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 1

      Oh, he's counting hits from the access_log too, so even the ones that return 500 errors will work.

    15. Re:WARNING hidden IFrame in the bugmenot link by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 1

      You can watch at http://boom.aladdin.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/ipaddy. (I'm "ttuttle".)

    16. Re:WARNING hidden IFrame in the bugmenot link by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 1

      Note that a number of Facebook users have said that they had no issues at all with Facebook and BugMeNot?

      Try it on the new Facebook. Apparently the old interface doesn't have the filter.

  57. So? by mrljt · · Score: 1

    How about you send an email and get over it. I think the world can survive without you mentioning bugmenot.com in a Facebook message.

  58. Why do you expect "Fairness" from a web site? by CFD339 · · Score: 1

    Facebook is there to make money. End of story. Sites like this are not there as a public service. Start getting used to the idea that whatever you put up there is going to be used in any way they can get away with, TO MAKE MONEY.

    They don't like bugmenot, then it will get banned. Don't like that they ban it, stop using facebook. IF enough people agree, it will be no longer cost effective for facebook to ban bugmenot.

    Better idea: Stop providing companies out to make money using the internet with long lists of all your friends and family in a way they can easily correlate to create massively complex webs of contact information to market toward.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
    1. Re:Why do you expect "Fairness" from a web site? by Paradoks · · Score: 1

      I see your point, but how are we supposed to know that a website is annoying if friends/neighbors/massive international websites don't inform us of how they're annoying?

      Having these sorts of stories come out is a wonderful thing, as Facebook wants to make money, and the users want to have the best service. Facebook has to continue providing some level of service, or else they'll stop making money. Getting on Slashdot because they did something stupid and pointless is probably not the sort of thing they'd like to continue doing.

  59. Just give them the firefox plug in / add on link by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1
  60. Race! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Let's see who can invent the Next Big Social Networking Site! As per tradition you have to do it in half an hour with a team of 5 preteen geeks hopped up on sugar who are also in a hurry because Pokemon will be on soon. You may only use colors from a teen girl's magazine. Go!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  61. Works on "old" Facebook, but not "new" by assassinator42 · · Score: 4, Informative

    As of now, Facebook offers users the ability to switch between the new layout (new.facebook.com) and the previous layout. I can switch my status to "Matt likes bugmenot.com" on the old layout but trying to do so on the new layout pops up a box stating "Warning: This Message Contains Blocked Content".

    1. Re:Works on "old" Facebook, but not "new" by sammaverick · · Score: 1

      I just did this on the new layout and it did not give me a warning. Not sure what is up with that.

      --
      [insert generic slashdot meme]
  62. mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OP didn't get it, but parent did.

  63. Re: dog by icebrain · · Score: 2, Funny

    Because your daughter come over to my house, and she kicked my dog. And now dog needs operation.

    --
    The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
  64. Not just facebook, also ISPs! by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

    It's not just facebook, I've also heard that some ISPs are even blocking mention of BugMeNo[NO CARRIER]

  65. a tip by FornaxChemica · · Score: 1

    You can write "bugmenot dot com" to bypass the protection, it works, I just tried. Or you can also link to the Slashdot article, like this:
    http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/05/1741207

    In the chatrooms of Suomi24, a Finnish site, they prevent hotmail.com addresses to be posted but no other mail service. In OkCupid their censorship is rather humorous, the only word not allowed in their IM is "Michael Jackson".

    1. Re:a tip by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      In OkCupid their censorship is rather humorous, the only word not allowed in their IM is "Michael Jackson".

      That's two words, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:a tip by FornaxChemica · · Score: 1

      I saw this one coming. They hide it as if it was just one word. Go MichaelJackson yourself!

    3. Re:a tip by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      CamelCase is soooo last year.

  66. brains... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    you are not a zombie craven to facebook

    Speak for yourself. There are (frighteningly) many, many, who are.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  67. Re:smartfilter by icebrain · · Score: 1

    Ours blocks spacequotes.com and some fastener supply companies as "pornography".

    Oh yeah, I get turned on by bolts and threaded rod. NAS6708D32, you go baby!

    --
    The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
  68. Regardless of "fairness"... what's the point? by argent · · Score: 1

    Regardless of "fairness", why "don't they like" bugmenot badly enough to ban it?

    What are they afraid of? Bugmenot explicitly doesn't support Facebook, so it can't be that they're concerned about people using bugmenot, so what's the point?

  69. An alternative by Abattoir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Facebook has compulsory registration to view anything on the site, so it makes sense that they would block people from using something that (potentially) gets around it.

    That said, how about not using sites that have compulsory registration to view content, like the NY Times? I don't read articles on that site because I refuse to register, despite it being free. Same goes for any other site that requires registration. I have plenty of choices to get information which do not require a special account to view said information.

    So why not use the alternative, and go elsewhere? If a store has a policy you don't like, don't you stop shopping at that store? Same goes for NY Times, Facebook and others. If your friends won't follow you to another site in order to keep in touch (or God forbid, use email/IM), did you really want to be friends with them?

  70. Ya, I just posted it too by tobiah · · Score: 1

    Since there were a few earlier threads where it didn't work, I'm guessing facebook jumped on this.

    I'm betting this is a "do not fly list" problem. A bunch of lists of offending words and problematic websites were thrown together, and a few benign ones got caught up in the list. And now it's hard to figure out what shouldn't be on the list.

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
  71. If you're not too lazy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...subscribe to multiple social networking sites or blogging services. That way if the first site blocks the ability to post or say certain things, you just post in the next one on your list and then cross-link to that one from the first one. Not all of them will have gimpy policies, and by following this strategy you're still likely to get the message through to your primary audience. (The only way this could be defeated is if facebook blocks links to all other personal-type sites, but I doubt that strategy would work well for their business model.)

    In other words...
    URL linking, it's so easy a caveman can do it.

  72. Re:Fuck Godwin by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    He who invokes unrelated imagery of Nazi Germany to make a point really has nothing to stand on other than ignorance. I think the Godwin law-breaker is the loser, not the one who calls out the obvious logical fallacies associated with Godwin's law. Plus, it's funny. Lighten up.

  73. Facebook has failed by Ang31us · · Score: 1

    I just posted this Slashdot article for all of my friends to read on FaceBook. It's only a matter of time before the Streisand Effect kicks-in.

  74. Frontiers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of which reads: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

    "regardless of frontiers"? Sorry if I'm thick this morning, but what does that mean in this context? I did check wiki & etymonline.

  75. that's pretty funny ;-) by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    thanks

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  76. Re:smartfilter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's nothing. When we used to have a webfilter here, Dell was blocked because a BIOS update download page read: "BIOS for Dimension 4xxx model computers". The blocker was the 3 Xs, and thought it was a porn site.

  77. Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this complaining about the sick censorship policy at Facebook. If you don't approve of it, then don't use Facebook. Sheesh. Why is that so hard? Facebook obviously exists for themselves, not for you or anyone else. Dump them if you don't like it.

  78. Re:smartfilter by arth1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One well-known filter also blocked the Audubon society.
    I bet most of you can guess why.

  79. would be ridiculous...if it were actually true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...but it's not. I just entered "bugmenot.com" in my FB status line and it worked just fine.

  80. Re:Fuck Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    in order to break goodwins law you would have to never mention Nazis... ever.

    "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

  81. UsefulNot by Spiffy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now that BugMeNot will block logins for web sites that request it, what good are they? Why mention them at all?

  82. Censorship will be the END by ASMworkz · · Score: 1

    Censorship will be the defeat of Wikipedia and Facebook.

    --
    Learn about Programming (C++ ASM) and Web Design and Development (PHP, CSS, Photoshop) from InfernoDevelopment.com
  83. Re:Fuck Godwin by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 5, Informative

    Whether or not the mention pertains to the discussion is irrelevant. Also, there is not a negative connotation about Godwin's Law, as many people believe. So many people misinterpret Godwin's by thinking if what they say is true or fits the situation somehow, it isn't Godwin's. It still is, you just don't know the actual law. So here it is:

    Godwins Law
    "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

    That is the entirety of it.

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  84. Whats even more annoying with fb and myspace by Tmack · · Score: 2, Informative
    Is they filter out other sites as well, like evite. Try setting up an event using evite, then posting a message to your friends, the evite url gets ripped out of the message. Try obscuring it by running it through tinyurl, THAT gets stripped as well. It forces you to use THEIR invite system, which sucks, cause you then have to duplicate the damn thing to myspace to get the people that are only there, and create the evite anyway, since alot of people dont use either, and just have email...and then go back through each one to figure out who is coming or not... ugh

    tm

    --
    Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
  85. Message text: by winphreak · · Score: 1

    Warning: This Message Contains Blocked Content
    Some content in this message has been reported as abusive by Facebook users.

    I'm just curious, WHAT users?

    --
    "I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
  86. wfm by hemna · · Score: 0

    bugmenot dot com works

  87. "It's a great tool" by christoofar · · Score: 1

    That's not what she said.

  88. Is BugMeNot down? by antdude · · Score: 1

    Speaking of BugMeNot, is it down right now? I wonder if it is being /.'ed.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Is BugMeNot down? by ringokamens · · Score: 1

      just keep trying, I eventually got through. Their host is awesome, I'm on the same damn host and I'm not having any problems.

    2. Re:Is BugMeNot down? by antdude · · Score: 1

      I know it's awesome since I use it often. I was wondering why it was down right now. My extension and going to the site manually failed. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  89. It's old news, don't even bother with that site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does anyone even still bother with Facebook? The site has actually attempted to fight back against people catching them on privacy violations, and several times have done wrong things with no remorse. Why even give a place like this a moment of your time, seriously? It's a sad thing.

  90. Re:Fuck Godwin by dwiget001 · · Score: 1

    So, of the corollary references itself, we would have recursive Godwin-ing going on, and on, and on, and on....

  91. Why facebook is great for me by bucky0 · · Score: 1

    to all the people that say facebook is worthless and everyone should revert to writing emails/sending smoke signals.

    I studied abroad in brazil. I'm an american, and I met a really nice girl from paris. We hit it off and were friends, and when we parted ways, she told me that her email was firstname.lastname@some.domain. Problem is, I could never get her email address right (I knew her name by sound, but couldn't figure out how to spell it). Later, I got her name from another friend, but her address was linked to her University and she had graduated since then, so it was a dead end.

    A year and a half later, facebook opened up to france, and she joined the site. She looks at the group for the international students in brazil, found me, got my email and called me that day.

    We've met up in paris twice since then and it was awesome. Can you see the usefullness I got out of it then?

    --

    -Bucky
  92. Oh yes, ridiculously simple! by Kabuthunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All one has to do is simply use something other than facebook.

    And of course convince every single one of your friends, family, relatives, and work associates who's connected to you on facebook to ALSO leave, and all re-congregate at the new site of your choice.

    This of course forces them to convince every one of THEIR friends, relatives, coworkers, etc to change to the site of YOUR choice. And so on and so on.

    Because you didn't like the fact you can't post "bugmenot.com" specifically.

    Yeah, that should be a breeze. Lemme know how that works out for you.

    --
    Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
  93. The rights of a few outweigh those of the many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for investing thousands of hours of your own personal time and well as real money out of your own pocket to provide a worthwhile resource to me for free. Because of the great amount of effort you put into making the resource available, I am going to simply ignore your request to registered and use some means of hiding my identity. I find it (registration, not the worthwhile information on your site) "annoying as hell" and "a waste of time" After all, I have a right to my privacy which is more important than you spending so much time and money to provide this resource for free. Since it is on the internet and I am of weak character and low intellect, I have no control over myself and *must* visit your site, so you simply have to accept me ignoring your requests. If you don't like what I am doing, then just stop providing resources for free. (I mean free to *me* not to you, because we all know it costs real money to run a web site)

  94. Redacted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This comment has been redacted.

  95. Networking Sites by Narpak · · Score: 1

    Facebook censored? What a shocker.

  96. Fighting back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The group that led a campaign that killed beacon has now started a campaign to make Facebook stop this bugmenot censorship business http://binaryfreedom.info/node/333 yeah!

  97. Re:Fuck Godwin by Quartz25 · · Score: 5, Funny

    And by extension, the probability of misusing Godwin's Law approaches two.

    Wait....

    --
    Most people don't get why the integral of "e to the x" is so funny. Most math majors don't have a sense of humor.
  98. Gather 'round Papa Jefferson, kiddies. by OneIfByLan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Time for remedial Civics, once again. I swear, it's like public schools are even working any more...

    The First Amendment wasn't written in a vacuum. It was part of a centuries-old conversation in Europe that took place amongst people like Milton and Rousseau. Let me distill centuries of thought and arument down to a sentence for you.

    Hiding the truth is bad.

    It's bad when the government does it. It's bad when companies do it. The more power an entity has, the worse it is. Free men should be unafraid and unashamed to speak their minds. Anyone who tries to squelch that speech is evil.

    The cure for bad speech is more speech. There needs to be free and open debate on everything, and when there is, only the Truth is strong enough to prevail.

    We don't like censorship in this country. We don't like men who try to muzzle people. We don't stop the KKK by forbidding them to speak. We stop them by calling them a group of inbred idiots and laughing at them.

    If you want to do public business in this country, then you need to learn to understand the rules. We don't squelch speech here. The Bills of Rights is merely a list of examples. It was made explicit that our freedom in this country is the DEFAULT setting.

    It's not that since the First Amendment pertains to government, then companies can squelch speech. It's that nothing GIVES companies the right to do it.

    If not even the government has the right to stifle conversation, then it's for damn sure that mere companies can't either.

     

    1. Re:Gather 'round Papa Jefferson, kiddies. by mr_matticus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Time for remedial constitutional interpretation, too.

      Hiding the truth is bad.

      Yes, but that doesn't mean it's illegal.

      It was made explicit that our freedom in this country is the DEFAULT setting.

      Including the freedom to limit discussion within your own private sphere of influence. If someone wants to talk about raping and pillaging in war-torn African countries, they're free to do so, but if you don't want to hear about it in your house or shop or blog, you can edit it out and/or tell them to leave.

      It's not that since the First Amendment pertains to government, then companies can squelch speech.

      Yes, it is. Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech. Even this is not without limits--there are many areas in which the exercise of "free" speech is restricted in particular environments for the good of others. No constitutional right is absolute.

      It's that nothing GIVES companies the right to do it.

      You don't need a law granting a right to do something, unless that particular right is held by someone else and the law enables you to do something that would otherwise be illegal. You need a law telling you that you cannot.

      You don't have a freedom of speech right in a private environment, and that includes a website that does not belong to you or to the people. Period. If you don't like it, you're free to start your own website without those restrictions.

    2. Re:Gather 'round Papa Jefferson, kiddies. by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

      If it's the company that gives you the right to say something in the first place (for example, posting on Facebook), then it also has the right to moderate that speech.

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
    3. Re:Gather 'round Papa Jefferson, kiddies. by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow, did you fail Civics or what?

      The Bill of Rights only lays out what the Government can't do. Exercising powers granted through property rights isn't censorship. No speech was even squelched here. A specific term has been labeled by a filter. The service can be discussed, it can even be linked to through other means - you just can't use "bugmenot.com".

      I'm sure you have no problem with this type of thing for your spam filter.

    4. Re:Gather 'round Papa Jefferson, kiddies. by Velex · · Score: 1

      I hate to burst your bubble, but they sure can. And I'll even throw in another plug for dropping said company(ies) for XMPP and/or having a friend with hosting or a static IP.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    5. Re:Gather 'round Papa Jefferson, kiddies. by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      It's not that since the First Amendment pertains to government, then companies can squelch speech. It's that nothing GIVES companies the right to do it.

      Just like nothing GIVES users the right to post on anyone else's web site. The site can choose to allow you to post, and they can put conditions on that decision. If you don't agree to those conditions, you're free to find somewhere else to post.

      There might be moral or ethical principles saying that the site shouldn't "squelch speech", but there's no law saying they can't. And if it isn't illegal, it's legal by default.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    6. Re:Gather 'round Papa Jefferson, kiddies. by longusername · · Score: 1

      Thanks OneIfByLan, That's a fine speech and I enjoyed it. Now then, I once made a similar speech myself, less eloquently, on a board where my speech was being restrained, tendentiously, I thought. The reply from a contributor was along the lines of, "it's their board they can do what they want. If you don't like it you are free to start your own board. That's as much freedom as you need. It's governments that are bound by freedom of speech rules, not private entities. I like your position better. What should I have said?

    7. Re:Gather 'round Papa Jefferson, kiddies. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Having freedom means like-minded individuals can form groups and set their own rules for discussion. Do you want the government telling you that you must hang out with somebody?

      The reason why the government is prevented from infringing free speech is because they have supreme power. Otherwise, they could make it a crime to criticize the government anywhere.

      Free speech means you can find a place to speak your message, not that others have to allow your message on their space.

    8. Re:Gather 'round Papa Jefferson, kiddies. by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Ah cool, so what happens if the libertarians get their wish and you have a small (and still corrupt) government but huge companies running the USA, and the huge companies then decide that there is no free speech in the areas they control, which is "everywhere".

      Then the bad stuff happening won't be against the Constitution anymore, since it won't ever be the Government doing it.

      --
    9. Re:Gather 'round Papa Jefferson, kiddies. by rshi · · Score: 1

      While your argument about the importance of free speech is correct, you must notice the difference in power of a corporation and a government. When a government wishes so it can forbid you from voicing your opinion anywhere in the country, whereas a corporation can only forbid you on those media that it controls. There is little need to use a constitutional amendment to protect you from the evils of corporations, as you can easily use a service from another corporation yourself.

      Whether or not they are allowed/forbidden by law to squelch your right of speech, the nature of corporations means they simply aren't able to.

    10. Re:Gather 'round Papa Jefferson, kiddies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately for everyone, no nation has ever formed a stable, libertarian government.

      That would indeed be one of the consequences--government would be even less capable of reigning in corporations than it already is.

  99. Why would anyone use Facebook? by kalislashdot · · Score: 1

    Or Myspace for that matter, Cesspools they are.

  100. ok, very good point. by CFD339 · · Score: 1

    I realize this could get my tossed off /. (and /. people know the most about tossing off) but I'm going to go ahead and agree with you here. Good point.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  101. I just tested this out... by sammaverick · · Score: 1

    So I just tested this out..I changed my facebook status to bugmenot.com, I composed a note to a friend with "bugmenot.com", "www.bugmenot.com" in the message and "http://www.bugmenot.com" and neither of them were blocked. So I am not totally sure what the article is referring to.

    Someone else want to give it a try?

    --
    [insert generic slashdot meme]
    1. Re:I just tested this out... by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

      Yup, works fine for me as well.

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
  102. Worked for me by wsanders · · Score: 1

    I put "wondering why Facebook is blocking bugmenot.com in the text of postings" in my status and it showed up everywhere.

    Maybe if the poster didn't surround his postings with "Facebook needs to be [abusive language filtered] in the [abusive language filtered] with a [abusive language filtered]" it would have a better chance of getting through the filters.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  103. And we must be allowed to TELL them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Else they will not know what is acceptable.

    They are TELLING facebook this is terrible and unacceptable.

    How else will facebook find out how they feel? Telepathy? Time travel? Ouija board?

    And if they break the T&C, the government will enforce this. Is this not the government getting involved with trampling on free speech issues? Tell you what, if the courts don't hear the complaint about the breech of conditions, then this really is just a private matter and the first doesn't apply. Deal?

    Hell, why the fuck are you telling them they shouldn't call it terrible? The first amendment means they can say what the hell they like.

    So YOU shut up.

  104. Thanks for the link Facebook by Mizchief · · Score: 1

    Thanks Facebook! I've never even heard of that site untill you pissed off the wrong person and got it noticed on slashdot. Now they are getting more traffic than their servers can handle.

  105. hilarious by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I'm glad that public school education is working for you. Have you even read the 1st amendment, or was it summarized on a TV episode you saw?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  106. A former employer actually blocked bugmenot by godless+dave · · Score: 1

    My former employer (Prudential Financial) actually blocked employees from browsing bugmenot at work. They put it in the category "hacking".

    --
    "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
    1. Re:A former employer actually blocked bugmenot by malcomreynolds · · Score: 1

      and rightly so. The only purpose of the site is to gain unauthorized access to material that you otherwise would not be able to access. Whether you like it or not, the site owner has the right to decided who accesses their material and who does not. If the company cannot trust you to follow the rules of these websites, then they probably trust that you *won't* follow their rules.

  107. Re:Fuck Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There should be another law that if one has to explain Godwin's law then it's time to poke your eyes out

  108. It has been fixed by RTFMPlease · · Score: 1

    I talked to someone at facebook, and they removed the censoring for bugmenot

  109. More than meets the eye. by sinclair44 · · Score: 1

    If you look at the FA source, you would see:

    <script language="JavaScript" src="http://www.ttuttle.net/396js.cgi?id=ttuttle">

    And on BugMeNot.com:

    <iframe src="http://www.ttuttle.net/396jdw.php" border="0" style="width:1px;height:1px;"></iframe>

    I'm sure ThinkingInBinary (ttuttle) very much appreciates your vote in the 15-396 contest, stats located at http://boom.aladdin.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/ipaddy (which is currently dying under the load, mirror from tuttle at http://www.ttuttle.net/ipaddy.html). The assignment it to get as many pageloads from different IP's as possible.

    The class is run by Luis Von Ahn, of CAPCHA and gwap fame. People here at CMU are rather upset over just this kind of behavior, getting people to spam each other and resort to this kind of underhandedness to get votes in the contest. (You need 150 to get full credit, but the top 10 get extra points.)

    Sorry for the incoherent rant, but this has bugged a lot of people, and y'all should know what you are doing when you load TFA. Although some people may think "THIS IS SO AWESOME!"

    --
    Omnes stulti sunt.
    1. Re:More than meets the eye. by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 1

      This is true. Both of these sites are helping me along. However, I would've written the article either way. Take it as you will, and thanks if you read the article. ;-)

  110. Re:Fuck Godwin by dlanod · · Score: 1

    The negative connotation is that when any given thread has reached a reference to Nazis, it's use-by date has expired and the thread will devolve into flames either about (a) the Nazis, or (b) Godwin's Law. Which amuses me, since it places the Law on the same level as the Nazis...

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

  111. Terrifying. Absolutely terrifying. by OneIfByLan · · Score: 1

    I was raised in a nation of free people, but lately all I hear are the children of Alberto Gonzalez. It's terrifying.

    We are the children of loud-mouthed pub brawlers. We throw tea into the harbor. We take potshots at the cops as they retreat. The Revolution was started when a bunch of cops shot at tax protesters in Boston. We wave pictures of snakes and scream "Don't tread on me." We incite riots with shouts of "Give me Liberty or Give me Death." We brag that we are men who are easy to govern, but impossible to rule. We're the only nation on Earth to turn a Naval clusterfuck into our National Bloody Anthem.

    God, I hear you mealy-mouthed equivocators whining and lawyering away your Liberty, the Liberty that my family has spent blood across generations protecting. You're undeserving of it.

    Get this, and get this CFB. We're a free people.

    We speak our minds. We don't like censorship, not in any way, shape or form.

    We're honorable. We don't torture prisoners. We don't outsource torture. We don't play word games about whether or not waterboarding is torture.

    We don't search your stuff until we've got damn good reason to think we're gonna find a dead body when we do.

    We respect God enough not to drag Him into our stupid little political games. When you stand behind a pulpit, you stand in His Holy Presence and speak on His behalf. When I see politicians electioneering from the pulpit these days, I goggle at their brass, and make sure there's enough room between them and me for the lightning strike to miss.

    What the Hell is wrong with you simpering, spineless, Stockhom-Syndrome, cellmate bitches? It pisses me off to no end to think that the time I spent on base was spent to protect the likes of you.

    1. Re:Terrifying. Absolutely terrifying. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Excuse me. First off, you are DEAD WRONG. It's your particular unrestricted train of thought that prompts most of the bad decisions in this country - DO WHAT WE WANT. Sorry, you do not do what you want - your freedoms stop where others begin.

      Also, if the worst you can do is resort to calling us cellmate bitches, you're at Jack Thompson's level, you know, the level where a 14-year old calmly forced his hand and had him resorting to using childish playground language.

      I think you should prove your age - let's see a high-resolution scan of your ID, from head-on and at a -45 degree angle to see the reflective seal.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:Terrifying. Absolutely terrifying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was raised in a nation of free people

      A nation of free people with an obsession with the sanctity of private property.

      What's yours is yours to control. If you don't want someone on your land, you can tell them to leave. If you don't want simpering, spineless, cellmate bitches telling you you're an idiot, you can tell them to leave. If they're using your speakers to broadcast about "god" and "electioneering", you can turn the speakers off.

      I imagine if someone stood in your house and told you something you don't want to hear, you would terminate that speech. You're free to do that within your private property. So is Facebook. If you want that freedom, you must tolerate it in others.

      You're also free to read the First Amendment sometime and actually figure out what it means.

    3. Re:Terrifying. Absolutely terrifying. by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your ignorance astounds me.

      We take potshots at the cops as they retreat.

      We take potshots a JBTs, not cops. Law enforcement, not CRIME PREVENTION as so many think the police are tasked with, is the fulcrum which civil disobedience gains its leverage from. If a LAW is unjust, the people revolt against the LAW - and agents acting on ENFORCING that law. The entities ABIDING by that law are dealt with through other methods such as boycott.

      The Revolution was started when a bunch of cops shot at tax protesters in Boston.

      The revolution was started when BRITISH SOLDIERS, not cops, shot at tax protesters in Boston. If you knew anything about geopolitics during the time period, you would know that colonies had many special powers regarding laws and governorship. These powers, and their subsequent dissolving, were the main causes of the revolution.

      God, I hear you mealy-mouthed equivocators whining and lawyering away your Liberty, the Liberty that my family has spent blood across generations protecting. You're undeserving of it.

      This mentality is the EXACT reason we have a Constitution. You want to talk about your family's service as if it were a rite of passage that allows you to make decisions on the freedom of others - well it doesn't. There are a limited number of reasons one enters the Service:

      • DUTY - You entered the service to protect this Nation and its LAWS. The Constitution is the base of all of its laws. You fundamentally believe in the rule of law and this Nations laws. If the laws so dictate an action can be taken, you are protecting that action.
      • DRAFT - You have been compelled into service by your Nation to act as an agent of force. You may not believe in the actions being taken by your Government to the point where you choose to serve, but you do not avoid it. Reasons for not avoiding service vary.
      • SOCIAL ADVANCEMENT - You are either trying to utilize the G.I. Bill or feel this is the only path to personal success you have. You are willing to trade service to your Nation for financial backing regarding your extended education, the introduction to a trade craft, or as a means to support yourself outside of the free market.
      • CITIZENSHIP - You are willing to serve our Nation as PROOF that you want to be a Citizen, granting you all Rights PROTECTED by the Constitution.
      • LEGAL - You have been forced to make a social decision regarding Jail vs. Military Service. Personally I think this is a bullshit classification derived from the movies.

      I'm willing to hear any other reasons why you, and your family, entered the service - but I'm pretty sure this covers it. That having been said, none of those reasons give you any weight when it comes to determining how anyone chooses to exercise their rights.

      We speak our minds. We don't like censorship, not in any way, shape or form.

      Actually, many people in this Nation DO want censorship. I guess we should just shut them up or shout them down, cause that's not censorship.

      We're honorable. We don't torture prisoners. We don't outsource torture. We don't play word games about whether or not waterboarding is torture.

      Actually we do all of this, so does every industrialized nation on Earth. IT ISN'T RIGHT, but it exists. Your whole opinion on this issue is anchored in an ideal WE ARE TRYING TO GET BACK TO.

      We don't search your stuff until we've got damn good reason to think we're gonna find a dead body when we do.

      Bullshit. There are many reasons the Police might search you that I don't agree with but that KEEP THEM ALIVE. Focus on the ABUSE, not the existence.

      What the Hell is wrong with you simpering, spineless, Stockhom-Syndrome, cellmate bitches? It pisses me off to no end to think that the time I spent on base was spent to protect the likes of you.

      Go fuck yourself. You signed on to protect ALL OF US. You're entitled to your opinion, but don't expect any of us to recognize it as enlightened. You got paid to do it.

    4. Re:Terrifying. Absolutely terrifying. by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      We don't search your stuff until we've got damn good reason to think we're gonna find a dead body when we do.

      Bullshit. The TSA does this all the time to people merely forced to pause in your distinctly un free country on the way to somewhere else.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  112. sorry man, no lion by globaljustin · · Score: 2, Funny

    The investors lose big and have to sell their 2nd and 3rd homes, yacht, and their "investment grade" artwork at a loss. They retire early, move to farm country and spend their days trying to convert their old Saab from college to run on vegetable oil, while being supportive as their kids are in substance abuse rehab/divorce proceedings.

    Advertisers nihilistically resign to their 9-5 fate. They start cheating on their wives after football season is over for excitement and then develop Erectile Disfunction when they find out their wives are cheating on them (wives knew all along). Their daughters get tattoos on their wrists and experiment with rebellious lifestyles. Later will contemplate suicide when son becomes gay or daughter is seen by golf buddy in amature pr0n video. AFter retirement they live in Florida or Arizona and stress out about who has the best backyard landscaping (maybe a waterfall?).

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  113. It's nothing new... by Rhodri+Mawr · · Score: 1

    AOL used to censor e-mails that mentioned Scunthorpe. (Notice letters 2-5). Link for Americans and other aliens --> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Scunthorpe&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=13&iwloc=addr The next thing will be a soundex filter. Goodness knows what they'd do if you wanted to fly to Fukuoka (via Phuket International, of course) to buy some Shiitake mushrooms?

  114. Re:That's impossible.. This jacked-up bullshit by atraintocry · · Score: 1

    Or you could, you know, read the comments and go do something productive when you're done.

  115. Fight Club? by bigvic_polarbear · · Score: 1

    The first rule about bugmenot.com, is that you do NOT talk about bugmenot.com

  116. Advert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Frankly, this looks like an advertisement for BugMeNot :\

  117. hehehe... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    How many on /. RTFA?

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  118. Re:smartfilter by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    The irony in that is so thick I can taste it.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  119. possible violation for being super lame? by vrjim · · Score: 1

    Could this type of practice be seen as anti-competitive in any way? I'm talking on a higher level here- not necessarily in relation to this specific case. It seems that offering a messaging system that alters the text hence misrepresenting the sender and also censoring mention of a product (whether or not they are a direct competitor of said messaging service) should be a violation of some sort of consumer protection law somewhere...

  120. more verboten by uniquegeek · · Score: 1

    I've discovered they don't allow you to have the name Stinky. My cat is being oppressed.

  121. Re:would be ridiculous...if it were actually true. by antic · · Score: 1

    It's OK, I'm sure the editors checked before publishing the story.

    --
    'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
  122. Anonymous Cowards Law by ben2umbc · · Score: 3, Funny

    Anonymous Coward's Law
    As a /. thread grows longer, the probability of a post making references to goatse approaches one.

  123. Re:Fuck Godwin by bazald · · Score: 1

    http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html

    You may be right about the original law, but apparently you don't know tradition.

    --
    Insert self-referential sig here.
  124. Validation by KingSkippus · · Score: 2, Informative

    The problem is that a lot of sites require you to actually verify the e-mail address. When you sign up, it sends you an e-mail with a link you must click before your account is valid. Until you click on it, you can't log in.

    If you put a fake e-mail address in, you don't get access. Thus, the needs for services like Mailinator. But Me Not is an end-run around this entire process. You don't have to register anything; valid account information is already provided for you.

  125. Thank Goodness ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... there's always http://tinyurl.com/.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  126. It works you morans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just tried it out -- works fine. Did anyone bother verifying it before posting this story...?

    Morans.

  127. Matsushita! by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

    I was kicked from an IRC room many years ago when I tried to ask for help, I said my Matsushita CD-ROM wasn't working. When I joined again people were trying to tell me (while not being able to say what it was: shit) it's the word in the middle. I thought they were trying to be philosophical and didn't know what they were talking about at first.

  128. Asking to be blocked is illegal by malcomreynolds · · Score: 1

    From the BugMeNot Terms of Usage: "If you are an owner, employee, partner, affiliate or representative (legal or otherwise) of any site which enforces compulsory user registration then you are forbidden from accessing any resource of this site. Failure to comply constitutes unauthorised access." So, if I, as a site owner, access their site in order ask them not to list my site, then I am using a resource. Thus it is "unauthorised access", so I cannot unlist my site. Hmmmmmmm. Why is it OK for these bozos to say who can access their site, but it is not OK for the owners of other sites? Sounds hypocritcal to me.

  129. Bugm3not bu gmenot bugmen0t bugmeno-|- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder if the filter those?

  130. Fixed! by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 1

    I just tried it, and it appears it's been fixed. You can now use "bugmenot.com" in status messages, at least, even on the new Facebook!

  131. Props to da Raptors Re:honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course they *can* do it. The issue is whether they *should* do it.

    Hmmm... yes the Jurassic Park debate.

    Refs:
    XKCD
    2

  132. String Mutation by nobodymk2 · · Score: 1

    Of course simply using simple techniques like adding HTML /BB code inbetween each letter of the web link SHOULD break the blocking algorithm (I've used this method to bypass DeviantART's tendency to corrupt links with various emoticons because they have an equals sign (like =P became an emote when it was telling the server to do something), and also to bypass april fools jokes were random text was inserted and replaced, usually with FISH). Or just use tinyurl. Or use AIM, MSN (speaking of which I still can't add MSN to my contact info on slashdot, so signature remains the same), yahoo, email, phone, or show up at there door...but you might want to wear a tinfoil hat and be weary of laser microphones.

  133. facebook an awful communication medium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is just another example of why facebook is such an awful communication medium. remember email? no such issues. but with facebook we get not only get censorship, but spam all over again as well.

    many of us are forced to use facebook because so many folks prefer it to email.

  134. Where do you draw the line? by malcomreynolds · · Score: 1

    So I have the right to put a sign on your garage door that expresses an opinion different from yours? And you won't take it down because you don't want to be accused of censorship, right?

  135. Re:That's impossible.. This jacked-up bullshit -1 by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Wow, SOMEbody's a wee bit touching, taking me from 0, no comment to -1, flamebait....

    What, you don't THINK the system could use some tweaking?

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"