MSN Cuts Unmonitored Chatrooms Around the Globe 400
letxa2000 writes "According to MSNBC, Microsoft will be shutting down its unmonitored chat services in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and much of Latin America on October 14th--the day before MSN Messenger will lock out many 3rd party clients. Interestingly, the European manager of MSN is quoted as saying 'This is a decision based upon consumer experiences, child protection and our strategic investment to build up MSN Messenger.' It's starting to become clear that Microsoft is starting up the IM wars again and that the 3rd-party lockout indeed isn't so much about security as it is about marketshare."
Only Chat not Messenger (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Only Chat not Messenger (Score:3, Informative)
Trillian 2.0 [trillian.cc] (for win32) uses the new MSN messenger protocol so I can still talk to people over MSN even though I didn't install microsoft's client.
Re:Only Chat not Messenger (Score:3, Informative)
This is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:5, Funny)
"wher cn i get quake warez?"
"u r a faggot!"
"This person used their CD-ROM drive as a cup holder LOLOL!!!111"
I don't want them all coming back :(
Re:This is a good thing (Score:3, Informative)
I've not touched IRC in 3 years now and I don't miss its stupidity one bit. aMSN and yahoo IM's now provide my lameness filter to the chat world - I much prefer it that way.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
it's kinda hard to hang around face to face with friends i made during the time i was in army for example..
but yeah surely we don't talk to anyone outside our little clique if that means we don't answer people who come in on our emulation channel and ask for ROMMZZZZZZ in polish and wait for 30 seconds before leaving(!) so we even couldn't answer. also what might seem strange to some outsiders and accustomed to commercial nonsense chats is that people stay online even if they're not even on the machine, so they come up and see lots of people and then make the conclusion that they just don't want to talk to the outsider(when in fact they're not talking to _anyone_ because they're not around, and fyi, getting inside that little clique in most circles is pretty easy, just hang around for enough time and don't be an idiot, if you're idiot then the problem obviously isn't them but it is you).
if ms likes to act like it is responsible for the content on it's chats then it's fine by me, but imho it's really stupid because the next thing is that they deem they're responsible what sites you can visit from their msn service too.
Yeah, great... (Score:2)
D00000D! Wassssup!!
RU single???
B0st0n R0X0r5!!
ROFLLMAOPIMP!
Ah well. I was planning on moving to DALNET anyway...
Re:This is a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:2)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:2)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
If the kid is in a chatroom, alone, and the others are talking about sex then tough. The parents of said child should have been there with them.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:2)
IRC is next (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:IRC is next (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:IRC is next (Score:2)
Re:IRC is next (Score:4, Funny)
Re:IRC is next (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, do give over.
For one thing the UK *is not* the tabloids.
They try to foster a particular opinion as being national whether it is or not, and the Sun recently dropped the ball bigtime with their 'Bruno Bonkers' headline that they had to reprint because it was insensitive trash.
The whole deal with 'peadophiles' in the UK is that we don't have the association with 'Terrorism' that the US has. We've had terrorism for so long that it doesn't affect us. Kiddy Fiddlers, on the other hand, are this scary lurking menace that haunt the internet, street corners and *live in your town*.
The Brass Eye Peadophile special [cream.org] nailed this concept [bbc.co.uk] completely, and the flak that surrounded it was indicative of the PR value [guardian.co.uk] of this kind of fear.
The British public, generally speaking, have a bit more cynicism [spiked-online.com].
Re:IRC is next (Score:4, Funny)
Chatrooms were always a waste of time anyway imho...
Horses for courses :)
From the Jargon file [catb.org]:
Hackers who don't indulge in Usenet consider it a huge waste of time and bandwidth; fans of old adventure games such as ADVENT and Zork consider MUDs to be glorified chat systems devoid of atmosphere or interesting puzzles; hackers who are willing to devote endless hours to Usenet or MUDs consider IRC to be a real waste of time; IRCies think MUDs might be okay if there weren't all those silly puzzles in the way.
What's the problem here? (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally, I think this is a good thing. It will help drive torward a interoperable standard for IM - not playing catchup wi
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:4, Funny)
By and large the sheep will fork out their credit cards to keep the crack coming. Monetizing MSN is MS's wet dream.
They'll eventually pull it off.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, there's a major difference between these two mediums:
The ability to choose and focus on a single conversation will be lost. At least until peopl
Liker IRC... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Liker IRC... (Score:2)
Make more money (Score:4, Insightful)
The real reason for this is that the lawyers are screaming to cut the unmonitored service before they get sued.
Nevertheless, that kind of chat is among the most banal and crappy of all internet applications. If every provider stopped supporting it, it would be no great loss.
Re:Make more money (Score:4, Insightful)
Companies exist to make money. They don't do it for the fun of it all.
As much as I despise Microsoft because of their business practices, I can't really blame them for attempting to make money off one of their products. That's the problem with companies, they're always out for a buck.
As long as there's free alternatives [jabber.org], let them go ahead and charge what they want. The informed will begin to use free software more frequently because of it; and the uninformed might just discover it for the first time.
We've got a witch! (Score:4, Funny)
Your questioning of microsofts motives clearly indicates that you have something to hide. Are you a paedophile?
We have found a nonce! may we burn him?
IM Lockout (Score:2)
Rus
It's all about pedophiles (Score:5, Interesting)
Child abuse experts were interviewed saying this actually increases the risk to children, because kids have emotional ties to their online chat friends. Now they might give mobile phone numbers and other personal data to their online friends so that they can stay in touch... and if that friend is a pedophile, he is that much closer to meeting the child.
The child abuse expert urged parents to talk to their kids about this, so the child can deal with this close down of chat rooms in a better way.
Re:It's all about pedophiles (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's all about pedophiles (Score:3, Informative)
I was very disappointed with Radio 4 this morning covering this but not thinking to discuss that this means MS are stopping a free service, getting good publicity for themselves for free and instantly bashing all their competitors by implication. Oh, and getting referred to as a 'leading internet provider' in the UK where MSN don't operate.
This is very nasty marketing from MS, definitely increases the risk to children and should have got them shouted at loudly.
Re:It's all about pedophiles (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever I see stories of people doing things "to protect children", I often look for alternative motives. I think press departments of governments/corporations use this as a way of ceasing debate, but they know that people are too afraid to oppose the thing done because they don't want to be seen as against protecting children.
HM Government wants new snooping powers on email - undoubtedly as the legislation gets closer, the "protecting children" trump card will be played.
Like the experts say, What MS are doing will not protect children. They will find alternative chat rooms, possibly in juristictions outside the UK, with absolutely NO regulation or searches by police being available.
In this case, it looks like one of the following is the real story:-
MS are scared of getting sued
MS are looking to get people using messenger to increase their stranglehold.
MS are looking to publicise MSN as a service, encouraging non-savvy parents to believe that signing up to MSN means their kids won't use chatrooms.
MS want some publicity to help spin the image of them being a good company with strong, secure software who care about their users after the virus disaster.
If MS really cared about children, they'd host chatrooms and put some of their massive resources into moderating them.
Of course, the mainstream media are too thick to deal with the real issues in this - protecting children through education of parents and children in using the internet.
Re:It's all about pedophiles (Score:2)
Re:It's all about pedophiles (Score:3, Funny)
Even if we do the right thing for protecting our chilren (permanently locking them into a padded basement, obviously), we have this critical dilemma:
1) No sunlight can lead to soft bones, nutrient deficiency, and obvious harm.
2) Sunlight can lead to skin cancer, "leather face" (for the teen beach bunnies out there), and obvious harm.
Damn.
Okay, the right way to protect the children, then, is to have no children. Problem solved.
What, even this isn't satisfactory? What do you mean
Wool over the unwasheds eyes again (Score:3, Insightful)
Well done to Microsoft making the world think its doing children a favour, rather than making the peadophiles lot easier
eh... (Score:2)
Starting? Even without the anti-MS bias, you have to admit that altruism doesn't exist among companies. No air==dead people. Money is air to a company.
If MSN figures they can get more air this way, they will.
Duh.
MS only was nice so long as they got marketshare away from AIM. From this POV, it seems Jabber [jabber.com] really needs to be
No service? Go underground... (Score:5, Insightful)
My immediate reaction is that this will simply drive chatroom-using children to less-monitored, less well-policed chatrooms where they can carry on gossiping - especially if they don't have access to IM clients. Only nobody will be watching those chatrooms.
As much as I loathe some of Microsoft's practices, I would have preferred an organisation like them to be monitoring (young) children's chatrooms than SmallISP.com(tm). Purely from a resources standpoint, Microsoft was one of the best-equipped organisations to watch for paedophiles and other slime.
BBC discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
Another point they made: when talking to your children about the dangers of talking to strangers online (or anything else, really) it's very important to explain WHY it's dangerous, and make sure they understand exactly what the dangers are and how to avoid them. Children tend to rebel against authority, especially when they can't see good reasons for the rules parents set for them.
Re:BBC discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as a parent of 3 girls I think MS are between a rock and a hard place with this. There have been several high profile cases of underage people being lured into sex through chatrooms. If MS continue the service they undoubtedly will get flack for helping aid Paedophiles. No sooner was this announced they where closing the service they get accused of censorship. There have been calls in the UK to legislate that chat serverice providers 'properly monitor' users. Can't have it both ways and it's not up to MS to monitor each and every conversation. That would be a greater breach of privacy.
I've seen several comments here and here [bbc.co.uk] that this will allow people to ween off MS. It's not about MS crapware, censorship or privacy, it's about kids being abused by adults.
What is needed here is an education programme to teach parents, not children, as to the dangers. Most parents are clueless about the Net as a whole.
Is it just me ?? (Score:2)
If MS continue the service they undoubtedly will get flack for helping aid Paedophiles.
What I find totally scandaluse about the "to protect the children" claim. is that nobody seems to want to know what new features are in the new service, and how Microsoft plans to use them to protect the children in ways that can not be done today..
To me it just sounds like marketing blah blah to cover up the real Classical MS motive "To crush the competition" ..
Re:BBC discussion (Score:4, Insightful)
It is about MS Crapware. According to the article MS said:
"This is a decision based upon consumer experiences, child protection and our strategic investment to build up MSN Messenger,"
and:
Users in the affected regions will still be able to chat online but must do so through Microsoft Messenger, the company's instant messaging product.
and:
In the United States, Canada and Japan, Microsoft will introduce an unsupervised chat service solely for subscribers
It is not about protecting children, it is about getting people to use MS Messenger and subscribe to MSN. Most users will not know about competing services. They will recieve a message from MS telling them that the service they have been using is being closed down, and here is how to subscribe to the new secure replacement from MSN. What will the average user do?
Re:BBC discussion (Score:2)
What about Hotmail?! (Score:2, Funny)
I can only hope they shut down Hotmail next, though I feel it is more the S&M version of mail for people that enjoy getting spam in their mailbox.
Simply a question of being sued (Score:2)
I don't blame them (Score:5, Interesting)
Childrens channel moderation should not be taken lightly. Here in the UK there is a lengthy screening process for anyone who work with children, and unless MS could guarantee correctly screened moderators (screend of course in EVERY country that the channels operate) there is no way they could protect themselves from outraged public opinion.. Parents like to blame other people for not watching their children closely enough, and if a child is using a major companies message system, they have an easy target for their ire.
I personally believe any such undertaking to be ridden with obstacles, and microsoft as a "software" company are right to back away from this kind of thing
Re:I don't blame them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't blame them (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm just saying M$ are right to cover their own arses on this one.
Re:I don't blame them (Score:2)
Ok, think about that for a second. Have you EVER heard a report on the mainstream news that specified the company who owned the "chat" service? My guess is no. When you listen to them, they say "Internet Chat Room". AOL or Microsoft are NEVER referred to. MS and TW are also media companie
Well, (Score:2)
Re:I think the tide turned this week (Score:2)
What a shame.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this consitutes the first step in a slow march towards the ban of unmonitored chat rooms. Something which is absolutely bizarre considering the fact that the chance of your child being groomed by a paedophile are probably about the same as your child being struck by lightening.. In the UK we see about three to four cases of this a year.
More children get killed in car accidents.. in fact it's the biggest killer of under 12's if i recall correctly..
Unmoderated chat is about freedom of speech. The price we pay for freedom is that evil, to some extent, is free too. A world without fear and terror is a world without freedom.
Freedoms are being removed left, right and center in the post 9/11 world. The irony is that the terrorists succeeded.. The land(s) of the free are no longer as free as they used to be.. My forefathers fought for our freedom in blood.. We shouldn't give in.. Every man killed by a terrorist is a solider for freedom.. Let's not let democracy drown at the hands of a few.
Simon
Re:What a shame.. (Score:2)
Re:What a shame.. (Score:2)
MSN chat has existed for less than 10 years. Talking with others in public or
private has been around since lauguage developed.
The internet is not a replacement for a social life, however it can be an extenstion.
If you can tear yourself away from the internet, Why don't you enjoy your freedom to go down the pub to
It's also interesting to note (Score:5, Interesting)
Now they know the names & credit card #'s of all the players in the chat rooms. (They actually say this in the article.) Apparently they will still have 'unmonitored' rooms, but I'd bet money that they still track specific usage.
We still have IRC... Shutting down is useless. (Score:2, Insightful)
If lusers are smart enough to browse, they are likely to be smart enough to surf to the mIRC website [mirc.com] and download mIRC. Connect to your favorite network and the Chat Goes On!. However, MS has a point. (never thought I'd ever say that). IRC and chatting in general has be
Re:We still have IRC... Shutting down is useless. (Score:2, Insightful)
Money (Score:4, Informative)
"In the United States, Canada and Japan, Microsoft will introduce an unsupervised chat service solely for subscribers,"
"Users in the affected regions will still be able to chat online but must do so through Microsoft Messenger,"
Of course it's about protecting children. Honest. The British press I've seen is latching onto the protecting the children angle to the exclusion of everything else. Bring back Chris Morris.
Interview on BBC TV news (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess AOL is happy though.
long live iChat (Score:3, Insightful)
- Not bound to MS, who has a history if being big brother and control freak
- kids can use the iSight, which works flawlessly and assures the person on the other line is indeed a kid and not an imposter.
All that aside, I think this whole pedophile paranoia will one day grow a more mature and intelligent way of educating your kids. I have 2 toddlers myself, and get scared by the though that one day they will ride their bicycle from school to home alone. Does that mean I'll install a camera or GPS tracking in their forehead ? Offcourse not. Most parents agree with the fact that kids need to learn that the world can be a dangerous place, that strangers can be freaks, etc etc, but that all in all, it's a nice world, and we should be happy to live in it. The same holds for web communities. They have their inherent dangers, but all in all it's a nice world.
Just watch for the freaks and don't do anything head-over-heels.
The Worlds gone mad (Score:3, Informative)
Chatrooms are quite sinister (Score:5, Interesting)
I do use one IRC channel, but it's a special one on QuakeNet for a few mates who used to play Quake 2 together - never any trouble in there.
Re:Chatrooms are quite sinister (Score:2)
Why?
I am strongly against actions such as banning technologies like Chat because the could be used by paedophiles. I also believe that in reality paedophiles are extremely rare. However, in the case of public chat groups like the one you mention, I do think that there is a moral obligation on behalf of the service provider to monitor it.
Re:Chatrooms are quite sinister (Score:2, Interesting)
Or maybe journalists acting like pervs who want to pick up kids to get an "exclusive", or LEOs acting as kids looking to be picked up by pervs, or just baiters looking to out pervs by publishing chat transcripts.
I have always had the feeling that if there really is a population of pervs out there who believe their are many kids who want to be "groomed" it is because their are so many LEOs and journali
This is dangerous.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Good News (Score:2)
Let Jabber [jabber.org] step up and recieve its rightfull place.
Precedent (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Precedent (Score:2)
Doesn't that make you feel good?
Fear of new technologies (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nothing new. New technologies always inspire fear. When doing some research once I read an article in a magazine from around 1890 talking about how young ladies should not be allowed to use the telephone for more than a few minutes at a time due to fear that they weren't mentally strong enough to cope with the sensation of talking to a disembodied voice for very long.
In my lifetime I seen fear of video cassette recorders (remember how "video nasties" were going to corrupt a whole generation of children?) and similar fear of video games, and now all this stuff related to the internet.
The really stupid thing about all this from my point of view is how the press in the UK has caused the general public to believe that paedophilia (that is, adults that find pre-pubescent children sexually attractive) is common, when in reality it is very rare and probably no more so today than it was fifty or 100 years ago. This has caused, for instance, parents to be afraid to let their children go out to play outside. This is a real shame.
Re:Fear of new technologies (Score:2, Interesting)
Verily, William Caxton was a right rogue, with his printynge-presse, a worke from ye verey hande of 7atan to spread vyle and seditious corruption against ye Church, ye Kinge and all moralitie.
Re:Fear of new technologies (Score:2, Interesting)
It has also seriously warped people's view of what is sexually no
Let's sum up the obvious then... (Score:3, Interesting)
* Obviously Microsoft is not the only chat-room 'provider' in the world. Plenty of alternatives. Some of those alternatives are potentially less safe than whatever Microsoft provides.
Most people will simply migrate to another form of chat-rooms. This will have no impact WHATSOVER on people trading porn and doing who knows what else in chatrooms.
* Microsoft is going to provide 'subscription' based chat-rooms. Some monitored(?), some unsupervised? Either way, more control and money for Micro$oft. (And probably proprietary lock-in - or an attempt at that
* A subscription based chat-room means you need a credit-card to be able to use it. Who would be stupid enough to pay for something that you can get for free? It also means -> 'goodbye anonymous internet/chat-room user' -> 'hello Mr <insert name>, please pay here'. Also fits in well with the
* A chat-room where people are registered (using their credit-card) is nice, and implies more responsible people, and possibly guarantees accountability and who knows what else, but (IMHO) the whole point and appeal of a chat-room was the anonymous access!
* The media is focusing (almost exclusively) on the 'safer for our kids' angle...yeah right.
The articles I've read seem to imply that Microsoft is the ONLY chat-room provider and that this is 'a great step forward'. Right. Whatever.
I don't use IRC by the way. I can think of many better ways to waste my time.
About the lock-out (Score:5, Informative)
Re:About the lock-out (Score:2)
28 countries (Score:2)
Cost cutting wrapped in a moral blanket (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, if these sickos are infesting the boards as they claim, one might wonder why there aren't an equal number of policemen and admins there to catch them and protect the kids. I'm sure MSN is in the unique position that it can post warnings, censor & monitor conversations initiated from the chat room and provide all kinds of interesting account data and logging if need be. How is closing the service so that kids and paedos disperse over a dozen unmoderated and worldwide servers going to make the internet a safer place?
All in all, I think this talk of shutting the servers down is bunk. MSN could make their chatrooms safer but have chosen not to. This smacks more of knowing it will cost N million dollars to fix their service on the one hand and on the other to cut the service entirely, push people to their instant messaging and ban 3rd party chat clients all wrapped up in a moral blanket. After all, we all know these sickos are preying on MSN minors through their unauthorized Jabber clients right?
This helps little regarding child abuse problems (Score:2, Insightful)
We should be teaching and educating our
So if kids and sex is a big prob, what about cams? (Score:4, Interesting)
The two side-by-side struck an interesting contrast. On the one hand we've got MS talking about how we can't trust kids to use text chatting because they're so obsessed with sex. On the other hand we've got dozens of consumer electronics firms partnering with MS to make this the year of the camera enabled wireless devices. So, what's the deal?
If kids can't be trusted not to use the keyboards for text based sex --I mean how hard up can you get-- how are wireless cameras going to be the runaway product this year?
There seems to be a real contradition between these two lines of thought. I suspect from my own memories of childhood that the answer is: yes kida are obsessed with sex and no, the camera enabled devices are not going to sell well.
Most older adults tend to be camera shy and while kids tend to love the idea of posing for the camera, there's the definite possibility they might like too much.
So much cluelessness (Score:5, Interesting)
It was astounding how incredibly clueless the top brass of childrens charities were. In fact, the word "incredibly" is simply inadequate to describe their cluelessness - "breathtakingly clueless" would probably be a better description. They were praising MSN, and saying how this helped solve so many problems, as if MSN removing their chat feature would suddenly mean there's no such thing as Internet chat any more. You don't even need to know how the Internet works to know only an idiot would think this. You now have pent-up massive demand for chat rooms with no where to go - so guess what, just as if there was massive demand for $RANDOM_GOOD in the bricks and mortar world, someone else will set up to fulfil this massive chunk of unfulfilled demand.
As it happens, you only need slightly more knowledge of the Internet than a concussed bee to know that alternatives _already_ exist, starting with the granddaddy of them all, IRC. The only reason MSN Chat had the popularity it did was that it's the path of least resistance - for IRC you have to download a client, but I assume for MSN Chat everything's just provided. This unfulfilled demand will start downloading IRC clients no doubt (probably mIRC, so those who host mIRC downloads are probably in for the MSN equivalent of a Slashdotting).
This is the reason why we shouldn't let these people have _any_ sort of power to legislate or make changes to the Internet - their understanding is so incredibly inadequate, they shouldn't even be allowed to run a high street store, let alone be involved in Internet legislation.
They brought this on themselves (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, right. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Chat rooms too expensive, scape goat for closure found."
By blaming pedophilia and advertising they can shut off the service with little user backlash.
This is roughly in line with the changes to MSN messenger taking place on Oct 15th - no non-Windows/MS clients will be allowed to connect. An exemption may be arranged for Trillian, but no Linux or BSD clients will be available. This is apparently because of "security concerns and virus risk" - although if that was what you wanted to stop you would be more sensible disconnecting all of the Windows clients from the network
Isn't this irrelevant? (Score:4, Interesting)
They're going for the "technically inept parent who is afraid fo the internet" market.
Re:yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess I've been trolled, but you should lay off the 'Microsoft == evil' lines, they're getting really dull. This kind of comment is flippant, and actually pretty irresponsible. What would you do? What would you have them do? Give an answer of 'We're not people's censors' and leave it at that?
This is a perfectly understandable reaction on their part, and you will probably see similar reactions from other popular, unmonitored, visible chat providers. We can bitch about subscriber lock-in all we want, but the PR flack had an undeniable point -- subscriptions mean accountability for both the provider and recipient. When you provide a visible, accessible service like this, you have to decide if you want to allow this kind of crap on or not.
Hey, you want to see loads of junk, you can still go to IRC or read Usenet - it's your call.
Re:yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. You say `if you`re worried about what your children might see or do online, then only let them use the net in your presence, log what they are doing, talk to them about the dangers (and don't let them use the net if they aren't old enough to understand)`.
I don't care much about this instance, as I don't use Microsoft stuff if I can avoid it, and there'll *always* be a way of discussing things online with strangers, whether the government or big business likes it or not. I don't want accountability - I want to be able to talk about what I want with who I want, which includes strangers. It's easy enough to ignore idiots, catch bots and spammers etc. If someone wants to sit and watch rooms for perverts etc then fine, do it. I don't have a problem with that.
It's not exactly hard to monitor a room and look for words relating to `phone number` or `address` or `age` or whatever.
Re:yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
My point is not that MS can stop this kind of thing from going on - as you rightly point out, people will always be able to find ways around this kind of limit. If that means that people leave, and take the spammers and pervs with them, so much the better for Microsoft, no?
If Microsoft discovers its services are being abused and finds that it can at least control or stop that abuse from continuing, don't you think they'd want to try it? And yes, I fully realise that this argument can easily be transmuted against Linux users or anyone else MS doesn't like. But in this case, again, I have to ask: what would you do?
Re:yeah (Score:3, Interesting)
One more thing for people NOT to use from MS? That sounds like a fair situation. I was tired of blocking this *rap at the various firewalls anyway.
This is obvious PR cover for them retracting a service. I hope this sets a precedent for them withdrawing altogether... I can dream.
Re:yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
Does it really make sense to make a public service a payed service in the US, and to take it down completely in other parts of the world? What about the people using this service in those 28 countries, are they all spammers and porn-mongers?
The article hints at something interesting:
It is really an interesting question on how far you're willing to go taking away freedoms/openness from your customers because a small minority does something illegal/unwanted with it. Sutton is playing the 9/11 card very cheaply, and I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this. Are you really buying into this?
Re:yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus one can conclude that the problem isn't kiddy fiddlers, it's free (as in beer) kiddy fiddlers.
PS,OT, is anyone else having problems with /. headlines by email?
Re:yeah (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:yeah (Score:5, Funny)
(Unfinished sentence) (Score:3, Funny)
Re:yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
yeah, exactly. they're not peoples censors chinese goverment is, microsoft shouldn't be.
unmoderated/selfmoderated chat has been sort of baseline on internet chats all along, the chatters themselfs can and do moderate as much as they can if necessary.
Re:Sigh. (Score:4, Interesting)
First: At no time have they said the they will ensure, regulate or be responsible for the service. They are just claiming that their subscribers are not the problem it's the others.
Second: If subscriptions = accountability then I would assume that this would apply to all subscription services. So limiting users to their products and services just proves the point that their intentions has nothing to do with responsibility but with greed. I am sure that Yahoo!, AOL and all other subscription services would also like to solve the same problem.
Third: This is coming out after weeks a bag media press.
I just have a hard time believing any PR. Remember they are there to put a positive spin on the issue. If your are expecting any PR rep to com out and just say "We wish to destroy our competition therefore we will no longer support standards." you will be waiting a very long time. There is no reason why this cannot be stopped with the cooperation of all the players. Has any attempt been made to coordinate the effort? All I see is AOL doing it's thing and MS trying to weasel into another area that they can dominate.
Just my 2 cents and all the MS lovers now will moderate this as flaimbait.
Excuse me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Clueless journalists are just as dangerous for MS as they are for others (note: I'm talking from the UK, homeland of such some monuments of fair, objective et reliable reporting as The Sun [thesun.co.uk]). They've seen those stories about paedophiles "hunting" over the internet, and they know how 'sensitive' the public is about anything related to paedophilia (Britain is also the place were angry mobs assaulted a doctor's house because they confused the word 'Paediatrician' with 'Paedophile' [mrcranky.com]).
This may be a much more compelling reason than locking out a few thousands 3rd party clients.
Thomas Miconi-
Re:Excuse me... (Score:2)
Well, more accurately the lawsuits and constant warrants for information everytime someone says ASL in a chatroom. Knowing MS, it probably isn't profitable, will never be, thus drop it.
Compelling reasons ... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not at all. Here are some of the reasons Microsoft gives in the article (thru Geoff Sutton, European GM of Microsoft MSN):
""This is a decision based upon consumer experiences, child protection and OUR STRATEGIC INVESTMENT TO BUILD UP MSN MESSENGER"
"The straightforward truth of the matter is FREE unmoderated chat isn't safe"
Emphasis is mine in both quotes. But there you have it, even within the Microspeak they are admitting that its really profit/market-share driven.
That second quote looks very like their "free, open-source software isn't safe" marketing, doesn't it?
"Think of the Children(r)" argument (Score:5, Informative)
This would be a good opportunity to turn people on to cross-platform IM clients like GAIM [sourceforge.net]. I doubt anyone in the tech communities is naive enough to take the children argument as more than a red herring to keep IM from joinging the OS/Broswer/Mediaformat/Office format anti-trust [usatoday.com] action. It does, however, provide a very good cover for pushing people into MS-Passport [zdnet.co.uk], despite its reputation [avirubin.com], and for locking out [infoworld.com] non-Microsoft IM clients.
Alternately, this can be seen as just another product or service being dropped or postponed as the company sheds weight to try to stay afloat.
Lastly, regarding the link. This is being covered by everyone and his dog, even Reuters [reuters.com], so no need to plug poor sources..
Re:Excuse me... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, according to the newsletter (http://www.wtps.co.uk/) that I receive daily it seems at least one newspaper (the non-tabloid Daily Telegraph) doesn't, saying
"the ban effectively penalises legitimate chatroom hobbyists while failing to tackle the root of the problem.
Chatrooms are no more culpable for paedophilia than "the telephone system, the Royal Mail, the Church of England, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides, the Youth Hostels Association, the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme, all schools, the NHS, the railway network, the seaside holiday... indeed, any institution that allows adults contact with children,"
"It is plain bonkers".
Re:Excuse me... (Score:2, Interesting)
Call me a cynic but it is not like MS went into this IM stuff without a plan to handle this sort of stuff, what they did not count on was the added bad karma
Re:Excuse me... (Score:5, Informative)
Stop putting 'internet chat rapes' into Google and the problem goes away.
Seriously, a lot of this is bluster because of the relatively simplistic way the whole thing is presented by media and interest groups. 'peadophiles' are the social terrorists for a time when people are trying to shift that uncomfortable problem of telling their kids about 'jiggy' and the relative dangers _of talking to strangers_.
In terms of the last couple of cases of 'chatroom' abuse, all parties have been consenting. In fact the most recent has been a case of a couple of youngsters running away with each other.
The peadophile argument is Godwinesque to the extreme because you can't argue against these things rationally when people start emoting about it. 'Think of the children' is usually trumpeted by people who're on extremely shaky ground.
"If one person is saved by this, then surely it's a good thing?"
Going to extremes to save a single person is never good, especially if you unknowingly place more in danger.
This isn't altruism, this is about cutting a lossmaker. Where chatrooms are controlled, moderated and *logged*, you have some fairly specific information to find people with...driving the whole thing underground doesn't cure the problem, it just makes it harder to control. The vast majority won't give up because a chatroom isn't there, they'll just find someplace else. MS' thing is about dodging possible liability.
Re:Who uses MSN Messenger? (Score:2)