Facebook Messaging Blocks Links

Nope. by Gothic_Walrus · 2010-11-20 06:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

if Facebook wishes to become a player in the email market, they cannot block content.

"Messaging" and "e-mail" are not the same thing. Problem solved?

--
Goo goo g'joob.

Re:Nope. by LordLimecat · 2010-11-20 08:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

More to the point, if people dont really care about those features, facebook can do whatever it wants. When it goes too far, it will become clear to them pretty quickly.
Re:Nope. by SuricouRaven · 2010-11-21 00:31 · Score: 1

They are now. That's the point of Facebook's new communications idea: Unification of IM, email, texts, facebook messages, etc.

That's nothing by gmack · 2010-11-20 06:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Blocking sites on copyright grounds is one thing but mis-declaring sites they have a personal beef with as the source of malicious installs is quite another.

Re:That's nothing by IamTheRealMike · 2010-11-20 11:33 · Score: 1

I really doubt this is to do with a "personal beef" against anything.
The first thing to realize is that anti-spam systems tend to look only at the domain name parts of links (there are a few exceptions). The reason is that URL paths are "free" whereas domain names are not.
If the pirate bay is being rejected as spammy, then the most likely explanation by far is not some Facebook corporate policy against piracy but that it's obtained a bad reputation, or possibly started showing up in an external urldomain blacklist like SURBL.
Why might Pirate Bay links appear in spam? I can think of a few reasons. One is that torrent sites are a great way to spread viruses. A lot of people who would never download and run a fake antivirus product or a free smilies package will happily download and run EXEs from torrent sites. There is an entire industry of people uploading viruses to these sites, in the past I've even read handy how-to guides that show you how to do this without any technical knowledge at all. They take you through obtaining a pay-per-install EXE from an affiliate operation, binding it to some warez, testing it against popular AV engines to ensure a miss, avoiding blocks by the torrent sites, etc. It's just a very effective way to infect people.
Of course once you have your virus onto a torrent site, how do you drive traffic? Well ... spam! Make your virus steal a Facebook session and spam friends with a link to the latest hot video game or movie (which naturally needs a codec install before playing), and you just built a self propagating botnet.
This sort of thing is common and I've seen it before in other large anti-spam operations. The alternative explanations fail basic reality checks .... Facebook is not, as far as anyone is aware, launching or preparing to launch an iTunes competitor and it's questionable whether they'd accept link blocking as part of such a deal anyway.
Re:That's nothing by bill_mcgonigle · 2010-11-20 11:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

Blocking sites on copyright grounds is one thing
Half of what my friends on Facebook post could be classified as 'copyright violations'. Maybe ISP's should block Facebook.
(you do want to play this game, Facebook, don't you?)

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:That's nothing by RobertM1968 · 2010-11-20 11:50 · Score: 1

Blocking sites on copyright grounds is one thing but mis-declaring sites they have a personal beef with as the source of malicious installs is quite another.
Though true, and though I disagree with their behavior in such things, it is still within their rights to do so. The customer(s) will choose whether such restrictions make FB's service worthwhile or not.

--
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Re:That's nothing by gmack · 2010-11-20 12:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

ok.. now explain why lamebook is blocked with the following message:

The link you are trying to visit has been reported as abusive by Facebook users. To learn more about staying safe on the internet, visit our Security Page. You can also check out the malware and phishing Wikipedia articles.
Re:That's nothing by IamTheRealMike · 2010-11-20 12:27 · Score: 1

Who knows? Maybe it was in fact reported as abusive. Or maybe Facebook are indeed trying to control the conversation and I'm wrong.
My point is people routinely report all kinds of things as spam. It's not uncommon for services to become identified as spammy even though the people running them don't think they're spammers. People hit "report spam" on anything they don't want, basically, especially if they can't figure out a way to get rid of it easily. For instance legit bulk mailers that have a poor unsubscribe implementation (eg requires you to sign in) sometimes develop bad reputations.
Anti-spam is complicated and I've ridden shotgun on more than one "zomg [big company] is marking [random thing] as spam it must be a conspiracy" type stories. Censorship is never the actual cause. Perhaps Facebook is the exception, but I doubt it.
Re:That's nothing by phoenix321 · 2010-11-21 00:08 · Score: 1

Excellent point: does Facebook really really want to get into selectively blocking messages sent through their system because of their content? Did they really think through the consequences of being responsible for a billion user posting a billion messages per day?
Re:That's nothing by SuricouRaven · 2010-11-21 00:34 · Score: 1

I've not heard conspiricies about companies, but I do know of at least two conspiracies of individuals to flag as spam content they did not like for political reasons. The DiggPatriots had a policy of purging Digg of all liberals by reporting them as spammers (Or better still, racists) in order to get their accounts blocked, and there is an organised group of creationists on YouTube that spam-flags anti-creationist comments on pro-creationist videos.

Facebook and Content Blocking by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-11-20 06:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

I don't engage in gross copyright infringement, nor do I share links that condone such behavior. That being said, I do offer legitimate torrents via Demonoid (legitetorrents is a crappy tracker). If I were to share a link to my legally shared content and I was blocked, or I couldn't share links to sites like Jamendo or ClearBits, I would very much be up in arms over this. Since I do not use FB messaging, I cannot say if such services are blocked.

The article is right, though. If FB wants to seriously become a player in the online messaging world, this content blocking garbage must stop.

--
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)

Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by Cougar+Town · 2010-11-20 07:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Online forums and chats have been blocking URLs for years. People simply get around it by changing characters, breaking the URL up with spaces, or other things. Each system of blocking always has some way to get around it that's quite easy for a human to still understand, even non-tech people. I don't like them doing this either, but it's never been a real problem for anyone who actually wants to pass a URL along on other sites.
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by Sepodati · 2010-11-20 07:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Facebook isn't under any kind of obligation to link to your torrent, legal or not. If you have legal content, you can link to your own SITE where users can find torrents for your content. This leaves the question of legality on you instead of Facebook. Honestly, I'd want that one level of separation if I was running a business, also.
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by Sepodati · 2010-11-20 07:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oh, and if your SITE primarily provides illegal (in the US) access to copyrighted files, I'd block links to that, also.
These people that think the Internet is lawless to US citizens and they can do whatever they want because they're not "depriving anyone of anything" need to come back to reality. Get copyright law removed and then I'll defend you, but otherwise you're breaking the law.
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 07:30 · Score: 0

Why would I care about your rather fatuous opinion?
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 07:44 · Score: 0

What the fuck does copyright law have to do with any of this? OP did not claim that Facebook was breaking any laws, he said he would choose not to use their service if they were blocking his legitimate links.
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-11-20 07:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

No, Facebook isn't, but if they are providing a communications service, and I cannot use that service to link users to my content (legal or not), then it's a useless service.
I only brought in the legality of my torrents (which are fully 100% legal to share and distribute, as I created the content and licensed it thusly) because I felt a need to clarify that I do share links to content that has been licensed for legal sharing that happens to be torrented. If FB is breaking or blocking links to legit torrent sites (again, Jamendo (though they only provide torrents as an after thought now), Clearbits, and Vodo all offer legitimate torrented content that is freely distributable by all to name just a few) as well as illegitimate ones (99% of Demonoid content, The Pirate Bay, etc.) then the FB messaging service is useless to me.
Your other comment is laughable at best because you continue with whatever assumptions about what I was talking about that you present in the above replied-to comment that you made.

--
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-11-20 07:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Yep, pretty much sums it up. Perhaps I should have used smaller sentences.

--
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-11-20 08:00 · Score: 1

Oh I know, and I tend to not use those sites anymore (and if I encounter one, I avoid it from then on, it's just not useful to me). Unfortunately, the rest of FB is still useful for me, so again, I will just not use FB Messaging. Simple.
That's all I was really commenting on. I'm tired of sites that try to make it hard to share links, especially when they already have designed themselves to make doing so ridiculously easy.

--
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 08:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

a hyperlink is breaking the law? go fuck yourself.
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 08:24 · Score: 0

You're ignoring the obvious problem of "What if you don't have your own external website, and use a public tracker as your primary form of distribution?" there are plenty of smaller bands who only maintain a facebook fan page or myspace page, and who either don't know about other legalized torrent sites, or legitimately use Mega Upload or Rapid Share and are hurt by this.
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 08:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's the most retarded fucking bit of illogic I've seen in weeks. Let's take a few more steps down this same line of thinking:
a) A site that contains no illegally hosted copyrighted material, yet that contains an index to the locations of both copyrighted and uncopyrighted material is illegal in your eyes.
b) Therefore, google is illegal as it is just such a site.
c) Internet connections are illegal as they give you access to google
d) Computers are illegal as they give you access to the Internet
e) Computer shops are illegal as they give you access to computers
f) Roads are illegal as they give you access to computer shops
g) Cars are illegal as they give you access to roads
Need I go on? This isn't obtuse - this is just the practical application of your retarded stance.
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by Sepodati · 2010-11-20 09:18 · Score: 1

There's a big difference between "this content blocking garbage must stop" and saying Facebook is a "useless service" to you. I agree that it probably is worthless to you. I wouldn't have even made my post if that was all you said. But instead, you said that something "must stop", like Facebook has some kind of obligation to support links to specific sites.
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by Sepodati · 2010-11-20 09:27 · Score: 1

No, you said "this content blocking garbage must stop", not that you would simply stop using the site or that it would become a useless service to you. You said that in a later comment, though, which I agree with.
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-11-20 11:06 · Score: 1

No. I said I do not use FB messaging. Read my OP.
I did say that "this content blocking garbage must stop", which it should. I've been blocked to legitimate sites several times because FB thinks I don't want to go there because other people reported it as offensive.
Why don't you read what I wrote before commenting.

--
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-11-20 11:07 · Score: 1

When a website makes it easy to link to any site you want, to start censoring the links its users share is counter-intuitive, is garbage, and must stop (or stop making link sharing so easy). They made themselves obligated to link to whatever site users posts when they made it dead easy to share links.

--
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 11:27 · Score: 0

a hyperlink is breaking the law? go fuck yourself.
..and right there ladies and gentlemen is the problem.
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by phoenix321 · 2010-11-21 00:19 · Score: 1

Are the messages transferred through their system their property?
Does the US postal service has the right to look into letters to see if there's illegal content or opinions unfavorable to the USPS inside?
Has UPS? AT&T? Google Mail? Can Skype interrupt all calls that talk negatively about Skype's call quality? Is it admissible for Apple iPhones to block websites that advertise HTC smartphones and vice versa?
Since the consequences of this are endless, and in the appropriate political settings much more sinister, even deadly, we the people have decreed that everyone should stay out of our private communication, all the time, for whatever reason.
I think we should stick to that principle.
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-21 07:16 · Score: 0

I tried posting a link to an ubuntu 10.10 iso torrent when it came out on facebook. Naturally, my link was blocked. Strangely though, I could link directly to the torrent file. Basically when anyone clicked on it it would auto-download the torrent. I wonder if Facebook has fixed that yet.
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by ultranova · 2010-11-22 09:09 · Score: 1

Facebook isn't under any kind of obligation to link to your torrent, legal or not.

And that rises a related and interesting question: should it be?
The separation between "private business" and "government" made sense when the former was mainly small operations, and lack fo effective communication and fast travel made the world a huge place. As corporations have grown to rival power of nation-states, and world has become small enough for a single company to reach you anywhere, the difference has become unclear at best.
Can we afford to have huge concentrations of power that have no obligations whatsoever? If Facebook wants to get to the letter-delivery business, why should they be allowed to alter the messages? Isn't that forgery? Why should censorship be acceptable if it's done by a company you can never hope to defeat rather than a government you can never hope to defeat?
I propose we give up the black-and-white division to a bound government and totally free companies, and switch to a graduated one where the stronger you grow, the more tightly your operations are restricted. On one extreme there's the individual person and on the other the government, and all the companies on a sliding scale between them, each bound and restricted according to the measure of harm they might do if, for example, they engage in censorship.
The current era of ever-strenghtening corporate overlords will end with either them bound, or us.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Facebook and Content Blocking by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-11-22 10:44 · Score: 1

Naturally? Psht.

--
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)

Demographics by baresi · 2010-11-20 06:36 · Score: 5, Funny

I am more and more convinced that the type of people who are on Facebook, let alone those who actually will use messages, are not the types to know or be savvy enough for torrents and similar activities

--
RGdot.com

Re:Demographics by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 06:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

I am more and more convinced that the type of people who are on Facebook, let alone those who actually will use messages, are not the types to know or be savvy enough for torrents and similar activities
I agree. It is becoming clear that FaceBook IS INDEED the new AOL.
Re:Demographics by kachakaach · 2010-11-20 06:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

I am more and more convinced that the type of people who are on Facebook, let alone those who actually will use messages, are not the types to know or be savvy enough for torrents and similar activities
if you want to communicate with your relatives and certain friends, you end up with a Facebook and/or Twitter account, regardless of how "savvy" you are.
Re:Demographics by MichaelKristopeit168 · 2010-11-20 07:17 · Score: 0

and what if companies like facebook in a position to censor communication about the topic did nothing to try and keep it that way... would the people who are on facebook remain the same "type of people"?
yeah, hilarious.
prejudice = funny.
slashdot = stagnated.
Re:Demographics by MachDelta · 2010-11-20 07:53 · Score: 1

I use a phone, usually. For calling and texting people, I mean. The things we used to use phones for, before this all-I-use-my-phone-for-is-facebook-and-twitter crap.
But i'm old school like that. :>
Re:Demographics by TheRaven64 · 2010-11-20 08:12 · Score: 1

Why? I don't think I know anyone who has a Facebook account but not email.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Demographics by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 08:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

I am more and more convinced that the type of people who are on Facebook, let alone those who actually will use messages, are not the types to know or be savvy enough for torrents and similar activities
if you want to communicate with your relatives and certain friends, you end up with a Facebook and/or Twitter account, regardless of how "savvy" you are.
Funny, about 10 years ago the same thing was being said about AOL/Instant Messenger accounts.
Re:Demographics by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-11-20 08:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

that wouldn't be surprising since your FB login is based upon your email address.

--
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Re:Demographics by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-11-20 08:21 · Score: 0

Yeah, and your point is? The way we communicate with others hasn't changed (written or spoken word), just the medium.

--
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Re:Demographics by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 08:49 · Score: 0

I know plenty of people where I only know their Facebook account. Furthermore, I know plenty of people who check Facebook much more often than their email. Some I'm even more likely to get through to them by Facebook, even over phone calls/texts.
Re:Demographics by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 08:53 · Score: 0

> if you want to communicate with your relatives and certain friends, you end up with a Facebook
That makes no sense. I communicate with relatives and friends online all the time, and I have no Facebook or Twitter account.
It may come as a surprise to some, but the internet is not yet synonymous with Facebook.
Re:Demographics by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 11:44 · Score: 0

Oh, you're so right.
BRB signing up for an AOL account so we can talk!
Re:Demographics by Pharmboy · 2010-11-20 12:35 · Score: 1

if you want to communicate with your relatives and certain friends, you end up with a Facebook and/or Twitter account, regardless of how "savvy" you are.
I think that is the point that people are missing. I was dragged kicking and screaming onto facebook a little over a year ago. But the fact is, it is the easiest, simplest and fastest way to keep up with friends and family, whom are scattered all over the USA. I also keep up with nieces and nephews that are somewhat close by (60m) and can just say 'hi' every week or two. I hate most everything about facebook, from their privacy policies (which are a fast moving target) to the stupid games that used to be plastered all over my page until I blocked everything. But what I like is the fast, easy way to just say hi to all these people I don't get to see very often.
Just having a casual conversation once or twice a week through commenting on each others comments is a nice thing. Email doesn't cut it, as everyone can't pitch in. Coming from a very large family, the concept that everyone and their uncle (literally) can just pipe in a comment makes it seem more relaxed and "real". So I put up with Facebook and their crapola system, as I still get more good than bad from it.
What is the alternative? Tell my whole family I'm too kewl for Facebook and they are lusers for not being more tech-savvy? Yea, I don't think so either.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:Demographics by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-11-20 12:39 · Score: 0

wow, that so wasn't the point. Whoosh.

--
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Re:Demographics by gmhowell · 2010-11-20 13:22 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I am more and more convinced that the type of people who are on Facebook, let alone those who actually will use messages, are not the types to know or be savvy enough for torrents and similar activities
if you want to communicate with your relatives and certain friends, you end up with a Facebook and/or Twitter account, regardless of how "savvy" you are.
Don't worry, he's such an arrogant, nerdy shit that his family doesn't mind not hearing from him.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Demographics by LynnwoodRooster · 2010-11-20 13:58 · Score: 1

I just run a small Joomla website. Easy for me to pop in, squirt out a few paragraphs of "what I'm doing", upload a few photos, and publish the article. That way they can look at it, respond (a nice little moderated commenting module add-in), search, look at old posts, etc. Even have add-ins for SMS connectivity if you want to roll that way... Just browse to my site and it's all there - even easier than FB.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Demographics by teachknowlegy · 2010-11-23 09:13 · Score: 1

Who *didn't* get that from the start? Oh, that's right, you didn't. Sorry. Yeah, remember BBSs? How about CompuServe, Prodigy, Geocites, MySpace, Facebook, and the next social experience (probably when 3DTV merges with online multiversing games or something along that line, so you can actually appear different, and as they want you to, to each individual "friend"). Yeah, AOL is evil, just like everyone else who allows you to communicate with your buddies.

Unfriending Zuckerberg Now by billstewart · 2010-11-20 06:36 · Score: 4, Funny

He was a fun guy when he was a kid, but he's gotten to be really annoying as he's gotten older...

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Re:Unfriending Zuckerberg Now by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 08:38 · Score: 0

He was a fun guy when he was a kid, but he's gotten to be really annoying as he's gotten older...
You mean he tweets now about every stupid little thing?
Re:Unfriending Zuckerberg Now by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 11:44 · Score: 0

but he's gotten to be really annoying as he's gotten older...
"but he's gotten to be really annoying as he's gotten richer..."
there. fixed that for ya.

"Say what you want" by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2010-11-20 06:38 · Score: 1

Say what you want about the morality of using file sharing services to share copyrighted material, if Facebook wishes to become a player in the email market, they cannot block content.

I don't know that Facebook's messaging is ultimately going to be successful, because it's attempting to compete (despite what it says) with well-established and well-used tools like email and text messaging - but I doubt that blocking links to file-sharing sites is going to have an impact on its fate.

I'm sure someone's going to make the "slippery slope" argument somewhere in this discussion, although with one data point that's hard to support.

--
#DeleteChrome

Re:"Say what you want" by jmottram08 · 2010-11-20 06:47 · Score: 0, Offtopic

2 data points now.

Good email systems blocks content by mozumder · 2010-11-20 06:47 · Score: 0

And that includes spam.

This is nothing new.

Re:Good email systems blocks content by Firehed · 2010-11-20 06:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Good email systems *allow* you to block content. Big difference.

--
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Re:Good email systems blocks content by cynyr · 2010-11-20 07:14 · Score: 1

and most spam filters simply dump to a folder and never actully delete messages for you.

--
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
Re:Good email systems blocks content by stms · 2010-11-20 07:17 · Score: 1

The difference is generally speaking email systems don't block spam they just filter it and put it in a special folder. Not only that but spam filtering is something that users want and not something serving the agenda of the email provider.
Re:Good email systems blocks content by mozumder · 2010-11-20 07:59 · Score: 5, Funny

A BETTER email system does not place the burden upon you to decide what to block. It removes that choice from you, freeing up your time and resources.
This system is great - it takes known spam links, and blocks the SENDER from sending it.
Don't have to fish around spam folders wondering if you've ever missed a blocked email, because, you never got it in the first place.
This places the burden on the few sender, not the millions of receivers.
You really need to limit freedom to make it better. Remember, "choice" is a actually a cost. Each additional degree of freedom added to any system is one more bit of complexity, limiting its usefulness. The more complex you make a system, the less successful people are at using it.
It is why the iPod, and Facebook (its simplicity compared to myspace) dominates the market.
If you give people less freedom, they will be happier, since their main concern is what they practically do, not what they could theoretically do.
Re:Good email systems blocks content by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 08:42 · Score: 0

I certainly hope you just forgot the sarcasm tags
Re:Good email systems blocks content by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · 2010-11-20 09:55 · Score: 1

Uh... no. You're wrong except for the part about unwanted messages not being delivered in the first place being better than just delievered to a special place. I've been doing that with plain old SMTP for years though.
Re:Good email systems blocks content by lamapper · 2010-11-20 16:10 · Score: 1

A BETTER email system does not place the burden upon you to decide what to block. It removes that choice from you, freeing up your time and resources.
You really need to limit freedom to make it better. Remember, "choice" is a actually a cost. Each additional degree of freedom added to any system is one more bit of complexity, limiting its usefulness. The more complex you make a system, the less successful people are at using it.
What a tool comment. If you want to give me better filters fine, but not allowing me any level of fine control is unacceptable, I will stop using your product offering. Such is the case with privacy, cookies, Flash and Chrome/Internet Explorer compared to Firefox + Linux. (With Linux I can redirect the flash crap to /tmp and let it get erased between sessions, while unacceptable at least can be accomplished. Thankfully Flash is dying a slow death, it can not happen soon enough...that's what they get for attempting to take away my choice.)
If you have only two choices, you have no choice.

You really need to limit freedom to make it better. Remember, "choice" is a actually a cost. Each additional degree of freedom added to any system is one more bit of complexity, limiting its usefulness. The more complex you make a system, the less successful people are at using it.
Amazing and how sad for you. I would accept a simpleton version for someone that does not want control or access to filter to their own specifications, but you had better allow for more intelligent options for an advanced user. If not you better allow for root/admin access so I can correct your mistake or I will not use your product. To simply take it away and justify it with such an inane comment that I am somehow better off is silly. Its also extremely short sighted.
No Root access = Stupid Device = Not Smart. (Good mantra for cell phone makers)
If you are a developer and too lazy to give me options, at least give me the mechanism to fix it, or I will not purchase your product and/or user your service. You fail.
Please tell me you are not an American. As you are simply way to quick to give up the freedoms that our your birthright.
Censorship is never the answer.
You do not get more freedom by giving up freedoms. Your life does not get better when you give away your liberty or any freedoms. Once you start down that path, you will quickly reach a level that is simply unacceptable, the wise never allow themselves to be pushed down the path...ever. Not one step. You want to make my life better, give me valid options and choice.
When interviewed after Nazi Germany fell, those that went along with the status quo simply stated that the last time they took away our freedoms was not so bad, so this time will not be so bad either.
This happened once, than twice, than three times, yet another and another, until finally the path from the First time (A) to the last time (Z) was neither acceptable nor clear. By the time they got to G, it was too late and too much had been given away for nothing in return.
The powers that be understand this better than you do, as going from Step A to Step G would be unacceptable, however if they can get you to accept step B; than from Step B accept step C and so on, before you know it you are at Step G, deer in the headlights stupidity for allowing yourself to be led to the slaughter. Pathetic and easily avoidable by never allowing yourself to be pushed to step B.
Try innovation and making the product better for both the simple users and the more advance users.
Better to choose not to play than to allow your life to be controlled and prevented from becoming all that you can become.
Benjamin Franklin was right..."They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

...limiting its usef

--
Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
Re:Good email systems blocks content by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 22:06 · Score: 0

Less freedom makes you happier? Have you ever paid attention in history class or seen the world happiness rankings? very funny indeed
Re:Good email systems blocks content by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-21 01:28 · Score: 0

It is why the iPod, and Facebook (its simplicity compared to myspace) dominates the market. If you give people less freedom, they will be happier, since their main concern is what they practically do, not what they could theoretically do.
Your post may have been meant as satire, but this bit is actually spot-on. I know several people who got iphones, both friends and relatives. I know quite a few people who use facebook. Why? Because these people, for better or worse, care about getting the job done, and that's it.
Maybe there's a certain wisdom in there, too: take what companies have to offer (e.g. good phones, good social networking), and then move again when something better comes along. Facebook may censor users' messages, but if it takes this too far and actually affects people, they WILL move. That's the other side of the "their main concern is what they practically do" coin: in the end, it really is just a phone, just a social networking site. It's nothing that you can't replace, or that you can't live without.

of course they can block content! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 06:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

"if Facebook wishes to become a player in the email market, they cannot block content"

Do you honestly think most people care? If they cared about closed and controlled communications they wouldn't be using Facebook in the first place.

This is something approximately 15 geeks care about, and of those, 14 are not even using Facebook. FB might or might not succeed, but censoring emails will not be a factor either way.

Re:of course they can block content! by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-11-20 09:32 · Score: 1

This is something approximately 15 geeks care about
I suspect that you vastly underestimate the popularity of casual file sharing.

They are mining messages for data/profit by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 06:53 · Score: 1, Interesting

For facebook to alter the data in emails shows they are actually looking at the email. Not just for links they don't like but for any kind of data that they can use or sell. I would go as far to mention they are mining other social networks and creating a map of people's personal lives. People mindlessly give their personal data away for free and facebook turns around and sells it to any and everyone. Who needs identity theft when you can give away all your personal info on facebook.

Another way to look at this is facebook doesn't know that any of this data is real although it is assumed to be real. Putting false information is easy with this system and so is sending fake messages. The new age of spambook is upon us. Click in order to share your information.

Re:They are mining messages for data/profit by LordLimecat · 2010-11-20 08:52 · Score: 1

Not just for links they don't like but for any kind of data that they can use or sell
Whether or not thats true, its pure speculation, and a hell of a reach. It is trivial (in forums for example) to set up filters that scan content as they are posted and automatically perform replacements-- I created such a filter once on a bbs. Doesnt mean the data GOES anywhere besides the bbs, it just gets processed prior to posting.

The fact that you get modded interesting is a little disturbing-- "interesting" for wild speculation and paranoia?
Re:They are mining messages for data/profit by cynyr · 2010-11-20 11:24 · Score: 1

Well google has lots of my info, and i really wish i could "tag" places on maps. so that searches like "work to grocery store to home" would work. Or be able to store 2-3 different routes for any starting and ending point combination in google, and do "target on my way home from work", "bank on the way to grandmas", etc.
I'd happily trade some more info to google(i use gmail, reader, search, youtube, already)to get better routing for new places on maps.

--
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
Re:They are mining messages for data/profit by grcumb · 2010-11-20 13:05 · Score: 2, Interesting
Not just for links they don't like but for any kind of data that they can use or sell
Whether or not thats true, its pure speculation, and a hell of a reach.
Speculation? Possibly. A 'hell of a reach?' Not in the slightest.
I don't have access to the Facebook code base, and without it, the evidence I present here is nothing more than circumstantial. But consider: Some months ago, Facebook suggested I might want to friend a man whose name rang no bells to me, with whom I had no friends in common. He lives in Toronto, I live on the other side of the world.
Only after googling the name did I realise that this man runs a blog that I visit about twice a month. Once. about a year ago, I emailed him to pass on a link that I thought he might be interested in. So... how did Facebook create this association? The only possibilities are:
- They read my browser history;
- They accessed my email inbox - something I explicitly disallowed;
Just about a week ago, I got another similar suggestion, this time a woman from Denmark. The only thing we had in common is that she is a fan of Oscar Levant, and I had read a Slashdot thread that day that mentioned him. I'd never heard the name before, so I ran a google search for the name and read his wikipedia page.
What's Facebook up to? At best, they're taking a very liberal interpretation of what constitutes an acceptable level of investigation into my online habits. At wiorst, they're downright spying on me.
There are, perhaps, other less negative explanations, and I'll admit the possibility that I might have overlooked some detail. I'm a geek with 20 years experience in the field, but I'm still human and prone to error. BUT... Occam's Razor applied, the simplest answer is that facebook was taking liberties with what it allowed itself to see.
Will Facebook mine people's messages for content and use that intelligence for their own gain? Of course they will! That's what they do! Will they overreach when they do so? Evidence (albeit circumstantial) suggests they will.
--
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Re:They are mining messages for data/profit by lamapper · 2010-11-20 16:27 · Score: 1

I'd happily trade some more info to google(i use gmail, reader, search, youtube, already)to get better routing for new places on maps.
And I would be happy for you, just do not REQUIRE me to do likewise and we are golden.
Don't force me to give my phone number to use your service.
Don't limit my OAuth options in responding to a blog. ONLY if I use Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn
Don't force me to do anything I do not want to do, or I will choose not to participate...I will vote with my dollars and you will not see even one of them.

--
Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
Re:They are mining messages for data/profit by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-21 03:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

> So... how did Facebook create this association? The only possibilities are: ...
3. Your Toronto contact permitted Facebook to upload the details of his e-mail address book.
Remind me again why, if you feel that you must be on Facebook, you're not using a unique e-mail address for that site?

Cuts the other way too by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 06:59 · Score: 0

Imagine law-enforcement officials exchanging torrent links over Facebook for an investigation, and Facebook is blocking those links? What is Facebook doing in this case, *protecting* the torrent sites from law-enforcement?

Users have no credibility in protesting any more by Fractal+Dice · 2010-11-20 06:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Facebook, you shall not cross this line! No this line. Not this line. Wait ... ok, now don't cross this line.

Sorry, but I have a hard time seeing complaints about facebook as credible any more - surely by this point they've already driven away everyone who really cares about these sorts of things.

eh by unity100 · 2010-11-20 07:01 · Score: 1

those '15' geeks have much more activity than anyone else in the internet/web, and you can be rest assured that anything they are annoyed with will be talked by a lot of people, through communities, forums and so on. that is excluding the geeks who are actually publishing stuff, or leading communities, blogging, or doing any other thing.

--
Read radical news here

Re:eh by Sepodati · 2010-11-20 07:25 · Score: 1

LOL. really? You think the geeks talking about this will in any way compare the traffic about Glee, football or life in general?
Re:eh by unity100 · 2010-11-20 07:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

it does. it affects a lot of things. simplest of that, has been the case of firefox vs ie fight. firefox started from nothing. ie had everything. billions of people were being pushed ie through windows worldwide, even to the extent of thinking that it was 'internet'. (really, even i had seen a lot of people in my locale, who thought internet was ie - imagine - when the browser didnt fire up, but their messengers were on, they would say 'internet' was down). there wasnt any laws rules and regulations to prevent what was happening.

then, hundreds of millions of geeks started talking about it, posting about it, encouraging people on the net, friends, relatives to use it, putting download links to their pages, this that. that not only increased ff usage, but also helped bring it up to consumer groups' agenda and legislators' agenda, and effected an awareness and even led to eu regulation.

and see, here we are today, with ie waning, firefox increasing, even having opened the way for other browsers like chrome.

considering the developments around chrome, chrome os, and other google moves, this long chain of events may lead to even quite unexpected results in other areas.

so yes, it can happen. depends on how much importance these internet-wise active people give to something.

--
Read radical news here

Didn't hurt the iPhone by Trufagus · 2010-11-20 07:03 · Score: 1

At least facebook seems to be blocking content based on a clear set of criteria. It's not as if they are blocking all links to Google services just because they don't like Google.

I'm sure there were many articles declaring that Apple would have to stop blocking Apps if they wanted the iPhone to succeed but user's didn't care. And no, the recent changes in the App Store rules (and their allowing of Google Voice) were not because of pressure from users - they were from F.C.C. pressure.

So, we here on /. might care about FB blocking content, but I doubt their users will care.

It's a fair warning by Overzeetop · 2010-11-20 07:11 · Score: 0

I generally know not to trust the technical savvy, honesty or intelligence of anyone who uses a yahoo.com address. I guess I can add facebook to the list.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Use bit.ly by genealotech · 2010-11-20 07:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you have a link that gets blocked by Facebook, convert the link to a bit.ly link. Then it will work.

Re:Use bit.ly by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 07:18 · Score: 0

Right until they begin following URL-shortener links to check the real destination.

4shared.com is included by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 07:14 · Score: 0

There's nothing inherently copyrighted about 4shared, and they block that too.

Re:4shared.com is included by Sepodati · 2010-11-20 07:38 · Score: 1

Never heard of the site before and it took me less than a minute to download a copyrighted music file from that site. Er, I mean, my friend did that. my foreign friend, not in the US.

Not new by frozentier · 2010-11-20 07:19 · Score: 1

You haven't been able to send torrent links for a LONG time now, at least since the first part of this year.

op-ed by JPickard · 2010-11-20 07:20 · Score: 2, Funny

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man

Re:Users have no credibility in protesting any mor by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2010-11-20 07:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sorry, but I have a hard time seeing complaints about facebook as credible any more - surely by this point they've already driven away everyone who really cares about these sorts of things.

That's like saying that the people bitching about the TSA's hobsian choice between nudie photos or a rub-and-tug have no credibility because the TSA's been ratcheting up the crazy for almost a decade now and if they aren't taking the train they deserve what they get. Because of the network effect, facebook is the only practical game in town for a lot of people who want that kind of service.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Common Carrier rules.... by umask077 · 2010-11-20 07:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

So I worked many years ago for a USENet provider. We of course carried all groups. Everyone knew what was in USENet ad suffice to say discussion about what to do about things like the kiddie porn came up. The decision was made to shut down those groups. I mean it make's sense. Cut off access to those groups and stem the flow somewhat. Within 2 days of shutting the groups down we received a call from the FBI threatening to shut us down. They said by censoring anything we become responsible for ALL content on our systems.

It seems to me that Facebook should be held to the same rules. If they censor one thing they must censor it all

Now on a positive note the USENet providers legal department found out that what really happened was that we shut down and FBI sting. Once we knew that we were able to facilitate their investigation but still. The common carrier laws should apply to everyone or no one. If I have a vote, it's everyone.

--
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.

Re:Common Carrier rules.... by brit74 · 2010-11-20 15:30 · Score: 1

> "Within 2 days of shutting the groups down we received a call from the FBI threatening to shut us down. They said by censoring anything we become responsible for ALL content on our systems."

Huh? Why would the FBI do that? I could understand that a lawyer might contact you and say that, by "censoring" anything you become responsible for all the content, but I don't understand why the FBI would contact you to say that. Besides, if that's true, then it seems like all the filesharing sites that remove kiddie-porn are guilty of all the copyright infringement on their system. It's well known that the Piratebay has removed kiddie porn (although, they're not in the US, so maybe that's their way to sidestep the issue).

It seems to me that reasonable "common carrier" rules should allow companies to remove content at their discretion, but if they do so, then they should also be liable to respond to requests for removal of copyrighted material, as well. But, to say that they are automatically held responsible for all copyright infringement, even the stuff they don't know about, seems a bit extreme.

Announces F2F & FBShare by Rivalz · 2010-11-20 07:53 · Score: 1

Now with our omg Face 2 Face transfer protocol that instead of peers uses faces to share torrents facebook allows users to share copyrighted content so long as they subscribe to facebook premium ultra where users let facebook setup a live streaming video webcam impanted in each users eyesockets. This lets friends keep up to the second in some other person's live, and also allows direct advertisement streaming straight to the part of the brain that controls compulsive shopping.

Facebook Share allows users to share any file or document so long as the user transfers all rights to the file to facebook and agrees to pay for access.

Who cares... by seanvaandering · 2010-11-20 08:00 · Score: 1

... just hide your links in a TinyURL and proceed as normal. What's the big deal?

Re:Users have no credibility in protesting any mor by MaskedSlacker · 2010-11-20 08:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

The mistake you make is thinking that the GP wants to keep in touch with people like you.

Facebook are only protecting their ass by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 08:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

From the lawyers-happy groups known as RIAA and MPAA.

You must be joking by turkeyfish · 2010-11-20 08:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

The entire Facebook and social networking business model is about penning users into a coral and preying upon their personal information for its marketing potential. Anyone who buys into the technology must is basically signing on to be fleeced as companies like Facebook, Myspace, etc. fleece them for what they are worth.

Facebook is the internet on training wheels, for those who need the assist.

Re:You must be joking by LordLimecat · 2010-11-20 08:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Facebook is the internet on training wheels, for those who need the assist.
Apparently it hasnt occured to you that some people actually find it USEFUL for keeping up with a large number of contacts.
Re:You must be joking by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 10:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

Actually I think he is saying it's the internet with training wheels (including contact management). If you're a big boy there are plenty of other ways to manage contacts that don't lock you in and misuse your data and your contacts data.
Re:You must be joking by The+End+Of+Days · 2010-11-20 10:44 · Score: 1

Yeah! Only stupid people would like something you don't like, right?
Re:You must be joking by guruevi · 2010-11-20 10:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

An address book with a decent search engine works just as well. To keep in contact send them an e-mail. No need to outsource this to some company that may or may not abuse the information that is in their proprietary e-mail system.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Re:You must be joking by Manos_Of_Fate · 2010-11-20 11:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

If they exist, none of the people I know use them. A social network isn't much use to me if nobody I know uses it.

--
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
Re:You must be joking by DarkOx · 2010-11-20 11:23 · Score: 1

Now be fair they might be one of those people that thinks keeping in contact means with someone is constituted by reading their impersonal broadcast messages periodically, and broadcasting his or her own impersonal broadcast messages that the someone may more may not read.
I really think these social networks are pushing society apart far more than drawing it together.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:You must be joking by LordLimecat · 2010-11-20 11:32 · Score: 1

I do IT for a living, from helpdesk to routers to servers (Unix, Linux, Windows). I happen to also have a facebook account, since a lot of my friends and families do. Should I maybe spend the time to teach all of them a "better" way of keeping in touch? Or maybe not be such a curmudgeon and just use facebook like all my contacts?
Re:You must be joking by jo_ham · 2010-11-20 12:38 · Score: 1

The ease of use and convenience is not only at the geek end - if you are keeping in touch with family members who think the internet is the big E, something they can use easily is a bonus.
Re:You must be joking by phillipsjk256 · 2010-11-20 15:57 · Score: 1

Facebook has now reached so much critical mass that third-parties are advertising the service in their Advertising. That doesn't strike you as a little weird? "See, we're hip! We're on Facebook!"
The alternatives such as browser games, e-mail, IRC, and personal websites are a lot more distributed. As a result, people have a lot more control over their data.
Re:You must be joking by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 16:40 · Score: 0

Personal contacts? What are those?
Don't worry, the aspies on here will just continue to pile the hate on Facebook.
Re:You must be joking by Dan541 · 2010-11-20 20:08 · Score: 1

I'm not a big fan of Facebook; but it is very good for keeping long term tabs on people that you might otherwise lose contact with. When travelling internationally I have used it on more than one occasion to re-establish lost contact. In an age where people move around allot it is certainly easier than trying to track them down via family and known associates.
But I would prefer to rely on email any other time. I can't stand the little textboxes that facebook supplies, I treat all facebook communications as public. I won't post anything on facebook that I wouldn't post on a public webpage under my own name.

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Re:You must be joking by PReDiToR · 2010-11-21 08:21 · Score: 1

Hello, my name is Mike, I hear you need to get out more and meet more people like me.
If you're ever in the UK, come and have a drink with me and some people who use something wonderful called "Linux" that is just like Windows but free!

If you don't like the thought of meeting a random stranger off the internet, you could just use the word "Linux" in conversation until you meet someone who knows what it is and then cultivate your new friends circle around some contacts that this person knows too.

Either way, good luck meeting intelligent, educated people in the future!

--

Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
Re:You must be joking by thethibs · 2010-11-21 09:45 · Score: 1

Huh? You need to go back to ESL. You left far too soon.

--
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.

Re:Users have no credibility in protesting any mor by Unkl_Shvelven · 2010-11-20 08:18 · Score: 2, Informative

The phrase you are looking for is Morton's Fork: a choice between two equally unpleasant alternatives. A Hobson's Choice (not "Hobsian" as you say above) is a "take-it-or-leave-it" option: it would be a Hobson's choice if you phrased it "the TSA's Hobson's choice between going through security theater and not flying".

--
regular man whom love computer (Also, fuck beta).

This isnt news! by chucklebutte · 2010-11-20 08:21 · Score: 0

Facebook for long time now has blocked links from "bad" sites like the pirate bay to "legit" sites like my chinese redirector co.cc or maybe its Korean? Who knows all I know is its blocked and thats lame! My hosting supplies me with this company, for free redirect and since FB is racists and hates Chinese I cant share my forums links on my facebook page, thanks a lot... =/

--
Visit my Forums?

Virtually everything is copryrighted by noidentity · 2010-11-20 08:22 · Score: 1

Say what you want about the morality of using file sharing services to share copyrighted material, if Facebook wishes to become a player in the email market, they cannot block content.

They already are a player in the email market. Besides, they're trafficking copyrighted content constantly! As in, all the photos, messages, etc. written by users.

Re:Virtually everything is copryrighted by toriver · 2010-11-20 09:11 · Score: 1

Yeah, but they grant themselves a license to do so in the TOS... or rather the TOS say that you the copyright holder grants it to them of course.

wow by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 08:22 · Score: 0

I'm so glad they are providing facebook email now, I've always wanted to get a censored email account. I'm so tired of using all the free uncensored ones like gmail & yahoo.

Wow. You're a complete and utter brand whore. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 08:24 · Score: 0

So if i wanted to communicate through any of my 20 yahoo accounts... I'm fucking retarded. If I use any of my 5 gmail accounts you will question nothing? What if I use my aol accounts? Or something you've never heard of.

I won't judge you on your email address, I will judge you on your ideas. And your ideas tell me that you're either intellectually inferior or that you're 12 years old an worried about appearing uncool. I'm sorry, I repeat myself.

It's a fucking email address. It is not you. Grow up, kid.

Re:Users have no credibility in protesting any mor by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2010-11-20 08:35 · Score: 1

Thanks dude. Although Hobbseian Choice might have been a better phrase even if it is a neologism - since Thomas Hobbes believed that abuse of power by the state (TSA in this case) was just an inevitable part of the price for the social contract of government.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Re:Users have no credibility in protesting any mor by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2010-11-20 08:37 · Score: 0, Troll

The mistake you make is thinking that the GP wants to keep in touch with people like you.

You are totally right. But the AC's opinion is equally valid and, unfortunately, far more common and he doesn't deserve to be rated "troll" for it - it is pretty much a fact of modern life.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

US Censorship by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 08:47 · Score: 0

This issue is often overlooked when the issue of censorship is brought up:

While the Chinese (and alike) suffer from a limited for of government censorship of the Internet, Americans often suffer much heavier censorship, be it from corporations. (Whether it's their employer, campus or the current leading communication platform.)

Americans seem to have the idea that because it's corporations doing it, it's less evil than the government doing it. Or that since you can still curse the government, it's not "real" censorship.

In either case though, the end result is that your restricted in your freedom of expression beyond what your constitution requires.

what is the author smoking? by alienzed · 2010-11-20 09:00 · Score: 1

How in the world are you going to achieve security if you don't at least take some basic measures to protect your users. The internet should remain open but I applaud Facebook for protecting users who don't know well enough to protect themselves. I've been doing research recently into phishing attacks and it's as simple as getting any user to surf to a webpage that you point him to in order to gain complete control over their machine. The main counter argument anyway is that no one is forced to use facebook for their messaging needs, but given the amount of users already on facebook, it'll be rare to see people NOT use the service... this is a win-win for facebook and for users. Finally an organization is taking responsibility for protecting their users instead of expecting everybody to be a security and privacy expert.

--
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!

Simple solution: by Beelzebud · 2010-11-20 09:06 · Score: 1, Interesting

Don't use Facebook... They don't value your privacy rights, or even your free speech rights. To hell with them.

Re:Simple solution: by Manos_Of_Fate · 2010-11-20 11:11 · Score: 1

Facebook isn't even vaguely covered by free speech. Just the government.

--
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
Re:Simple solution: by Beelzebud · 2010-11-21 09:05 · Score: 1

And your point is? Just because they aren't legally mandated to respect those things, doesn't mean they aren't things an informed consumer should consider.

Re:Users have no credibility in protesting any mor by metrometro · 2010-11-20 09:07 · Score: 1

What makes you think it's not a sliding scale? The value of Facebook changes over time, while the deterrents to using it - namely that people hate or don't trust Facebook Inc. - also change over time. It's an unstable system, as the value is created by the users, and as users bail, that value can fall apart pretty quick. And I've got 100 shares of Friendster to prove it.

Centralization by sulfur · 2010-11-20 09:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

I remember when people were concerned about their privacy and complained about Gmail mining their emails. Facebook will take it to a whole new level, complete with value-added features such as censorship. People have to understand that decentralization is the only way to go; putting all your eggs in one basket (facebook) will never lead to anything good.

Re:Centralization by Panoptes · 2010-11-20 12:25 · Score: 1

"putting all your eggs in one basket (facebook) will never lead to anything good."
For one moment I misread that as "putting all your egos in one basket."
Re:Centralization by ironjaw33 · 2010-11-21 04:47 · Score: 1

Nobody complains about spam filters, yet that is still censorship.

Re:Users have no credibility in protesting any mor by vegiVamp · 2010-11-20 09:32 · Score: 1

It being a fact of modern life doesn't excuse it. If you can't be bothered to talk to friends offline, then maybe you don't really know what friends are.

I occasionally neglect my offline contacts too, I'm not innocent. But as soon as I realise that I've been doing that, I'll make sure to poke them and catch up. These are people I've shared important parts of my life with, and I'm not about to throw them out like garbage.

--
What a depressingly stupid machine.

Re:Users have no credibility in protesting any mor by tepples · 2010-11-20 10:11 · Score: 1

If you can't be bothered to talk to friends offline, then maybe you don't really know what friends are.

How would you talk to friends in person without abandoning all your friends in favor of new friends every time you follow the jobs to another state? Or are you defining "offline" to include the telephone? Or are you recommending the postal service? Or what am I failing to think of?

Re:Users have no credibility in protesting any mor by vegiVamp · 2010-11-20 10:39 · Score: 1

I believe we have a misunderstanding as to what constitutes a friend, as opposed to an acquaintance.

--
What a depressingly stupid machine.

Re:Users have no credibility in protesting any mor by Manos_Of_Fate · 2010-11-20 11:10 · Score: 1

Now you're just quibbling over terminology. Whatever you'd like to call them, I have people I'd like to keep tabs on without having to make 100 phone calls a month. I can keep up with what my cousins and other extended family members are doing, and see how old friends from high school and college are doing with minimal time investment. If I didn't have Facebook, I just wouldn't be able to keep up with most of these people.

--
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?

Re:Users have no credibility in protesting any mor by vegiVamp · 2010-11-20 11:24 · Score: 1

Yes, and your life would be how much worse for it, exactly ?

More interestingly, how much time would you win for doing other, possibly more useful or interesting things ?

The difference between a friend and an acquaintance isn't quibbling over terminology, either, by the way. If you don't realise that, I pity you.

--
What a depressingly stupid machine.

Re:Users have no credibility in protesting any mor by Manos_Of_Fate · 2010-11-20 11:28 · Score: 1

Just because you don't place value on social interactions with people you don't see on a regular basis, doesn't mean nobody else does.

--
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?

Re:Users have no credibility in protesting any mor by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2010-11-20 12:26 · Score: 1

If you can't be bothered to talk to friends offline, then maybe you don't really know what friends are.

That itself seems to be part of your definition of a friend. That's a far cry from simply "wishing to keep in touch." I have to agree with the other guy, you are projecting your own personal definition of friend onto everyone else and then condemning those who don't require the same kind of social interaction that you do. That's pretty narcissistic.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

nothing at all by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 13:26 · Score: 0

*they cannot block content*

well, they obviously do, so why use it at all?

I just linked a torrent on Facebook by guyminuslife · 2010-11-20 17:40 · Score: 0, Troll

I just linked a torrent over Facebook. Using both the "message" system and the "chat" system. The link works fine, according to my friend on the receiving end. It links directly to the *.torrent file of a copyrighted movie, which is hosted at The Pirate Bay. I did this twice, once with a small independent documentary, and once with a major studio blockbuster.

I'm not sure what these people are smoking.

--
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.

Re:I just linked a torrent on Facebook by guyminuslife · 2010-11-20 21:00 · Score: 1

Also posted a torrent on my wall, also from TPB. It was just a Linux distro, so there wasn't any infringement, but I don't think Facebook has any way of knowing that.

--
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
Re:I just linked a torrent on Facebook by guyminuslife · 2010-11-20 21:23 · Score: 1

Troll? Try it yourself!

--
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.

Disporia by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-20 18:34 · Score: 0

Disporia begins shortly.

The Basic Principle Is: by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-11-20 18:55 · Score: 1

I know there are legal exceptions due to corporate lobbying, etc. So don't go shooting me down over technicalities. I'm referring to the PRINCIPLE of being a "carrier" here in the U.S.

This is based on past legal precedent, and the intent behind establishing "common carriers" of communications:

If you want to be a carrier, you must not supply, alter, intercept (except by judicial warrant), or control content. Content must be in good faith delivered, intact and unaltered, from sender to receiver. Just like a telephone company, which might be considered the canonical "common carrier".

If you ONLY deliver content as received, you cannot be held liable for that content. But as a carrier, you may not control content. That means you cannot block messages according to their content. You are not even supposed to be aware of that content. It's none of your business. Detecting the content of communications may be considered illegal "interception" according to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

If you control content by blocking, redacting, replacing, or otherwise censoring it, you then become LIABLE for that content. You created the situation so the content is yours. You may be sued just like anyone else for the results of that content, since you were a significant creator of it.

And so on. It's really just legally STUPID for these companies to continue trying to censor the content they are carrying. It's all going to come around and bite them in the ass in the long run.

It a player just by showing up. by MorpheousMarty · 2010-11-21 05:09 · Score: 1

if Facebook wishes to become a player in the email market, they cannot block content.

This guy is kidding right? Facebook has 500 million active users, more than Hotmail. More than Gmail and Yahoo Mail combined. It is fair to say just by showing up they are a player.

Blake Workman by Blake+Worman · 2010-11-21 08:42 · Score: 1

Facebook is a credible site for email, it just wouldn't make a good email service. Stick with a software that's developed just for email facebook users.

MSN by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-21 12:58 · Score: 0

Just remember that MSN has been blocking .info links for years now (unless they've recently stopped).

Slashdot Mirror

Facebook Messaging Blocks Links

143 comments