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!"
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
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!
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.
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.
Of course they *can* do it. The issue is whether they *should* do it.
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.
Thanks for the update. I was really concerned there for a moment.
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?
I, personally, agree 100% with circletimessquare when he says:
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:
Clearly, the debate over corporate dominance has bitterly divided friends, families, and even individuals.
Since when has Facebook been about anything but data mining and user tracking?
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.
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!"
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.