Microsoft IM Blocking YouTube Links

A number of readers are sending word that the blogosphere and Twittersphere are alight with reports of Microsoft's new block on messages containing YouTube URLs. Both MSN Messenger and Windows Live Messenger reportedly implement the block. One blogger sniffed the network to discover that such messages receive a NAK from Microsoft's servers. Microsoft has been blocking messages by keyword, as an anti-phishing measure, for some time, but *.youtube.com would not seem to provoke much worry about phishing. Instead, as B.E.T.A Daily speculates, "This block seems to be related to the recent launch of Messenger TV in 20 countries which allows for sharing video clips from MSN Video on Messenger." Hard to get away with in an arena where you don't enjoy a monopoly.

I think somone at Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is just sick of being Rick Rolled [youtube.com]

Its not censorship

[nurb432]

When its a private company ...

Oh but we have to sound sensational to get attention, don't we?

This should surprise no one

[Presence2]

It's Microsoft. "What can we get away with today?" Enough said.

This seems rather foolish

[AmonEzhno]

Refusing to carry the links of one of THE most popular web pages on whole internet seems like a poor business decision. If you can't share the links you want then many people are just going to switch.
I mean who doesn't share youtube videos over IM?
Sorry but this just seems ridiculous

Just use a different IM client...

[ZlatanZ++]

It's Microsoft's app, they can do what the fuck they want with it. Use something else.

Ms Fanbois - explain this, now.

[unity100]

if you can. in almost EVERY sh@t microsoft pulled in the last 6 months, you have been inventing lots of excuses. what is the reasonable excuse for this ? why shouldnt google censor keywords like microsoft, windows, xp, vista now ?

Re:Its not censorship

[wizardforce]

The definition of censorship doesn't depend on who is doing it.

Nice Links - I guess it's Saturday

[iamhigh]

If the best source of news you can find is a blog with two columns devoted to ads, more ad space in the page that actual content, and that awful attempt at "web 2.0" design, then you probably shouldn't post it to /., or at least not on the front page.

um... still @ 95%

[toby]

I don't see any change to the monopoly position or behaviour, do you?

Nope, still the same old MS. And stories like this confirm - as hostile as ever to any whiff of fair competition.

Dear AC -1: your love letters notwithstanding, we're not going to rest till your beloved criminal monopoly is history. :)

True, however...

[Reality Master 201]

The article didn't claim it was censorship. It made the (purely factual) claim that links to youtube were being blocked by msn messenger. Which they are.

Sounds like you're the sensationalist one out for attention.

Re:Um, they don't have an IM monopoly!

[bdsesq]

so this has NOTHING to do with a monopoly.
No. But it has EVERYTHING to do with a monopolistic mindset.

Re:Um, they don't have an IM monopoly!

[Gavagai80]

Hence the "hard to get away with in an arena where you don't enjoy a monopoly" comment. Meaning they're shooting themselves in the foot. The common person will simply decide MSN messenger is broken and switch.

Re:Its not censorship

[NotBornYesterday]

Does this mean that when I make a call with my cell phone, Verizon can bleep me out if I mention a competitive service? If a company makes a communication medium available to me, and I use it, I expect that the provider of that service will not interfere with my communication unless I very specifically abuse the system or break the law.

Re:More sites appear blocked as well

[thetoadwarrior]

Surprisingly no MS sites seem to have been blocked.

Re:First

[aliquis]

One could always hope that would be enough to move people back to ICQ/AIM, not likely thought, sad enough.

They are gonna regret this

[eiapoce]

Ms has the habit of getting into troube. This time they performed exceptionally well.

We have a legislation here (italy) that state that tampering with electronic communications with the aim to impede or modify the contents of the messages is a felony. This is because the same legislation for standard mail has been applied to emails, phone conversations and IM.


By my point of view MS is getting sacked really bad in EU. (And they fully deserve it!)

Re:This seems rather foolish

[heatdeath]

The only thing they use blocking for is viruses or other malware prevention. It's a poor system, granted, but they still only use it for that.

I'm sure what happened was there was a virus reported that was using youtube profiles or video comments to spread, and somebody not very high up made a poor decision to just block everything from the domain.

I'm also sure as soon as people higher up figure out what happened, it will get removed. =P

Re:Its not censorship

[maxume]

Yes, but you are incapable of censoring me, whereas the government is capable of censoring me.

See, preventing me from using your resources to spread my message isn't censorship, because you aren't preventing me from spreading my message, you are preventing me from using your resources, which you have every right to do.

Re:They are gonna regret this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not certain what's going on here. Are MS quietly dropping those messages (then this may be covered as illegal tempering with communications), of if they reject the message and inform the sender that it could not be delivered. In the latter case, they are unlikely to be liable.

Re:Take off your tinfoil hats...

[Sibko]

So let me get this straight, you think the simplest explanation is that someone screwed up and accidentally added youtube, a site that receives millions of visitors a month, is owned by Microsoft's rival Google, and is the most ubiquitous video sharing website in the world; to a blacklist. For several days. [And AFAIK, is still blacklisted.]

Personally, I think a simper explanation is that someone with poor judgment thought banning youtube links would somehow benefit Microsoft. Maybe the decision was a good one, or a bad one. But I certainly don't think it was just "It's an accident, lol!"

Re:They are gonna regret this

[McD]

We have a legislation here (italy) that state that tampering with electronic communications with the aim to impede or modify the contents of the messages is a felony.

I'd imagine the spammers and virus writers love that.

If your ISP strips executable attachments from email, are they felons?

If an email provider tacks on a signature block or advertisement, are they guilty as well?

Sounds like a tricky thing to legislate, however well intentioned.

Re:They are gonna regret this

[MulluskO]

The answer to what you see as a problem is likely answered by the notion of "agency" or on whose behalf the software is acting.

If the software blocks incoming messages at the behest of the recipient, as is the case with spam filtering and "do not disturb" type IM configurations, it's obvious that the software is acting as an agent for the user wherever the code is running.

The law is cheifly concerned with the actions of men and not of the tools they use. This is the right way to do things.

Re:But wait, there's more!

[BlueStrat]

People with [e-mail] addresses never receive YahooGroups.com invites. I get them bounced back to me routinely.

This IM blocking is just another reason to boycott msn.com, hotmail.com & live.com.

[Of course, YahooGroups now adds spaces in URLs I try to send to my groups. I have to TinyURL everything these days.]

Yahoo has been blocking Photobucket.com links for ages in Yahoo chat. This is nothing new. Seems like it's getting to be pretty much S.O.P. these days for large 'net-service companies that provide multiple services including IM/chatroom-type services. Just forbid URLs to competitions' websites and services from being communicated over your services, and to heck with what the user wants.

Nevermind that most peoples' reactions that discover this that I've seen was anger, disgust, and frustration, along with a fierce determination to *never* use Flickr (Yahoos' photo/video upload service) just because of this stupidity, and even closing accounts there. Way to retain users, there, Yahoo!

I'm waiting to see if it comes to the point that things like the MSN Messenger installer silently removes competing IM/chat service client software. Or when things like Yahoo Messenger blocks the installation of competing services' software, or refuses to install while that software is present, and/or adds entries to the hosts file, blocking access to competitors'websites and services.

When will these corporations learn that users naturally tend to use multiple providers for any one function or service, and that these kinds of childish behaviors only alienates them?

Cheers!

Strat

As long as ....

[PPH]

... they don't block tinyurl.com.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Its not censorship

[wizardforce]

Any other form is perfectly legal.

legal != morally or ethically correct.

I'm "censoring" someone if I don't let them scrawl graffiti on my house, am I now the boogeyman?

no, the right to free speech does not include destruction of prperty [an infringement on your rights] nor does it involve illegal trespass. which reminds me, where exactly does a youtube link fit into that on MSN? does that apply to phone calls too, after all it's their infrastructure you're using??...

Re:Its not censorship

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"Again: their server(s) and their software." But its not like the Rule of Law allows you to do whatever you want with something just because its yours. Nor should it.

Re:Its not censorship

[Curien]

Any other form is perfectly legal.

Yes and no. ISPs, phone companies, etc are all legally protected (much more than normal property owners) from liability for the content that crosses their networks so long as they don't cross a certain threshold of editorial control.

I'd say that this definitely crosses that threshold. IOW, MS is taking legal responsibility for the content of messages passed on their system. You could sue Microsoft if someone verbally assaults you on MSN, and you might actually have a chance in court.

So while the act itself may be "perfectly legal", it does have strong legal implications.

Re:Its not censorship

[dcollins]

"See, preventing me from using your resources to spread my message isn't censorship, because you aren't preventing me from spreading my message, you are preventing me from using your resources, which you have every right to do."

You are totally incorrect. All censorship occurs in some context -- some censorship is small, others large. But it is censorship just the same.

Would you say, "My message gets blocked by the US government, but I can still publish it in Canada, so my message gets out somewhere, hence it's not censorship."? Or, "the NBC censor blocked that scene, but the CBS censor did not, therefore it doesn't qualify as censorship"? Ridiculous.

Re:Its not censorship

[celle]

It is as long as get tax breaks which make them taxpayer supported and hence government connected. Besides anti-competitive practices is illegal by a monopoly and lets not forget altering privately owned machines without permission.

May 10, 2008: The day Slashdot died.

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, Twitter, Slashdot's most maniacal anti-Microsoft troll, beats on the truthout.org dead horse. Of course, Twitter and Marc Ash are cut from the same cloth. They both believe that they are so noble, and their causes so righteous, that they can freely stoop to any depth, and engage in whatever underhanded behaviour they please.

Marc Ash was caught spamming totally unrelated Yahoo! Groups [spamcop.net] by joining and blasting emails through group addresses.

Twitter threadjacks a story, then shills his comment with three of his army of sockpuppets, including two accounts that are impostors of his critics.

And Slashdot does nothing.

Instead, Rob Malda posts this gem [slashdot.org] to the front page, claiming that Microsoft "prefers" Flash to Silverlight because Microsoft doesn't have some super-special-secret transmogrifier that could spontaneously transform each and every Flash animation on each and every web site Microsoft owns into Silverlight content, and didn't use it the very minute Silverlight 1.0 was released to the public.

Slashdot has turned reason and common sense and honesty against its own readers.

Delete your bookmarks, people. Redirect slashdot.org to 127.0.0.1 in your hosts file, in case you get the urge to go back. There's no point.

There are plenty of places where advocacy of Free and Open Source software is done without the community being exploited. Slashdot is no longer one of those places. Their hatred of Microsoft has become all-consuming, and they're proud of it. Time to leave them shouting into empty space.

Re:They are gonna regret this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure about Italy, but I guess it's similar in the Netherlands:

If your ISP strips executable attachments from email, are they felons?

They are if they do not notify you of the modification, or drop the message entirely.

If an email provider tacks on a signature block or advertisement, are they guilty as well?

They are if they are acting as relay, NOT when they are the service provider (e.g. an ISP adding a signature when you use their webmail service is allowed, but is not allowed when the mail agent is an offline program such as Thunderbird or Outlook)

Sounds like a tricky thing to legislate, however well intentioned.

It seems to work fine for all other types of communication, including telefax and telephone. Why should e-mail/IM be any different?

Re:Stevie Baller,

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really sad to see someone descend to this level. It's clear to everyone on Slashdot that you are being shunned by the community, first for trolling (not unlike this) and then for creating ten or twelve different accounts that shill each other's posts.

Microsoft has nothing to do with this twitter, it's your own toxic brand of "evangelism" that turns people off. There are plenty of people on Slashdot that criticize Microsoft and do it in an intelligent, composed way that is well-received. I mean, even here you continue to do it - can you provide proof that Windows Update deletes Netscape bookmarks? Of course you can't. Why do you make things like these up? How does that help you or free software? Heck, you don't even see the problem, do you?

Maybe one day you'll understand why people like you are so damaging to free software and open source.

-JC (posting anon because the moderation on this thread is punishing anyone who disagrees with you, or points out your team of sockpuppets, as usual)

Re:First

[cheater512]

Yeah everyone should just use Jabber. :)
Superior in basically every way except for a few minor features lacking and no one can control it.

Re:Rickrolls

[CastrTroy]

Which is why ICQ used to be nice it the good old days, when messages were sent directly between users. The servers were only to log in and get the IP address of everyone else in your list. I'm not sure if there's still any messaging protocols that work this way. It makes much more sense, and keeps messages much more private.

Re:Um, they don't have an IM monopoly!

[im_thatoneguy]

It's the girls. The girls choose one at random and the guys all switch to that.

MSN, SMS, MySpace... wherever the teenage girls go... the guys soon follow.

Teenage Girls sadly are dictating modern technology. Why do you think SMS costs so much? Highschool girls who don't have to pay for their cell phone bills, that's who!