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
Good email systems *allow* you to block content. Big difference.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
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.
If you have a link that gets blocked by Facebook, convert the link to a bit.ly link. Then it will work.
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.
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.
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
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.
The mistake you make is thinking that the GP wants to keep in touch with people like you.
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).
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.
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:
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.
> 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?