Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Messaging Blocks Links
jhigh writes "With the launch of the new Facebook messaging system designed to encourage account holders to utilize Facebook for all of their messaging needs, one would think that Facebook would recognize that it cannot continue to block content that it disagrees with. However, Wired reports that Facebook messaging, like the rest of the social networking application, continues to block links to torrents and other file sharing sites, even when users are sending messages via their facebook.com email address. 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."
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.
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.
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)
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
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
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
And that includes spam.
This is nothing new.
There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are two types of people in the world and people who don’t. I’m among the first type and I think the world is divided into people who recognize the Jewish problem and people who don’t.
In other words, the world is divided into smart people and dumb people. If you’ve got an IQ of 80, have difficulty operating a can-opener, and recognize the Jewish problem, you’re smart. If you’ve got an IQ of 180, have already won a couple of Nobel Prizes, and don’t recognize the Jewish problem, you’re dumb.
I’ve been dumb for most of my life: it took me a long time to recognize the Jewish problem. I didn’t think for myself, I just accepted the propaganda and conformed to the consensus. Jews are good people. Only bad people criticize Jews. Jews good. Anti-Semites bad. But then, very slowly, I started to see the light.
Recognizing Jewish hypocrisy was the first big step. I was reading an article by someone called Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a prominent British liberal. I didn’t like liberals then, so I didn’t like her for that (and because her voice and manner had always grated on me), but her Jewishness wasn’t something I particularly noticed. But as I read the article I came across something that didn’t strike me as very liberal: she expressed concern about Jews marrying Gentiles, because this threatened the survival of the Jewish people.
That made me sit up and think. Hold on, I thought, I know this woman sits on all sorts of “multi-cultural” committees and is constantly being invited onto TV and radio to yap about the joys of diversity and the evils of racism. She’s all in favor of mass immigration and there’s no way she’s worried about Whites marrying non-Whites, because “Race is Just a Social Construct” and “We’re All the Same Under the Skin”. She’s a liberal and she thinks that race-mixing is good and healthy and Holy. Yet this same woman is worried about Jews marrying Gentiles. Small contradiction there, n'est ce-pas?
Well, no. Big contradiction. She obviously didn’t apply the same rules to everyone else as she applied to her own people, the Jews. She was, in short, a hypocrite. But not just that – she was a Jewish hypocrite. And that’s a big step for a brainwashed White to take: not just thinking in a negative way about a Jew, but thinking in a negative way about a Jew because of her Jewishness.
After that, I slowly started to see the world in a different way. Or to be more precise: I started to see the world. I started to see what had always been there: the massive over-representation of Jews in politics and the media. And I started to notice that a lot of those Jews – like Rabbi Julia Neuberger, in fact – gave me the creeps. There was something slimy and oily and flesh-crawling about them. And it wasn’t just me, either: other Gentiles seemed to feel it too.
Politicians often attract nicknames based on some outstanding aspect of their character or behavior. Margaret Thatcher was “The Iron Lady”. Ronald Reagan was “Teflon Ron”. Bill Clinton was “Slick Willy”. But these are Gentile politicians and their nicknames are at least half-affectionate. Jewish politicians seem to attract a different kind of nickname. In Britain, Gerald Kaufman, bald, homosexual Member of Parliament for Manchester Gorton, is nicknamed “Hannibal Lecter”. Peter Mandelson, now Britain’s Euro-Commissioner and Tony Blair’s suspected former lover, is “The Prince of Darkness”. Michael Howard (né Hecht), the leader of the British Conservative Party, is “Dracula”.
When I noticed this kind of thing, I started to ask questions. What was going on here? Why did Jews attract nicknames like that? And why had Gentiles reacted to them like that not just now, but a long way into the past? Shakesp
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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?
If you have a link that gets blocked by Facebook, convert the link to a bit.ly link. Then it will work.
There's nothing inherently copyrighted about 4shared, and they block that too.
You haven't been able to send torrent links for a LONG time now, at least since the first part of this year.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man
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.
I'm going to be honest, I've had some friends where, because they don't have Facebook, we never talk anymore. I don't have the time or inclination to go out of my way to make contact with people who make it more difficult for me than I'm used to. *shrug* To a great extent, Facebook reminds me to be somewhat social, despite how busy I generally am. If you're not in my list, I'll just be one of those "hey, i haven't seen that guy in three years, what happened" guys. And you know what? I'm not going to apologize for it. If you want to give Facebook false information so the terminators kill the wrong guy, whatever. ..but don't just not have an account. Your nonconformity will count against you, particularly when it comes to people like me.
get what they deserve.
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.
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.
... just hide your links in a TinyURL and proceed as normal. What's the big deal?
The mistake you make is thinking that the GP wants to keep in touch with people like you.
From the lawyers-happy groups known as RIAA and MPAA.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Don't use Facebook... They don't value your privacy rights, or even your free speech rights. To hell with them.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I believe we have a misunderstanding as to what constitutes a friend, as opposed to an acquaintance.
What a depressingly stupid machine.
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?
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.
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?
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.
*they cannot block content*
well, they obviously do, so why use it at all?
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.
Disporia begins shortly.
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.
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.
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.
Just remember that MSN has been blocking .info links for years now (unless they've recently stopped).