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.

First

[Joe Jay Bee]

Well, this is clearly designed to prevent Rickrolls.

In all seriousness, I've been sending YouTube links around (and receiving them) just fine. Dunno where the problem is.

Of course, if bloggers and Twitter users say it, it MUST be true.

Re:First

[dgatwood]

Well, this is clearly designed to prevent Rickrolls.

Well then gosh, we'd better block YouTube links everywhere. After all, won't someone think of the children? They could be scarred for life. :-)

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:Threadjack - M$ Blocks Political Email. Re:Firs

[perlchild]

Quite simple: profit

They've been convicted of monopolistic practices. They keep up at them. They get fined for each time they do, but the fines never address the problem.

I would see one solution: if their online services get caught trying to participate in monopolistic practices, make sure the court orders them to sell the online service to a hostile party. Not just a third party, it has to be someone who has a fiduciary responsability to make microsoft shares worth zero. Tell them right now that's the next penalty for this, and we'll see if they do it again.

I can just imagine msn being owned by a consortium of ibm and aol(ok ok I need a better example...)

Re:First

[Roadstar]

In all seriousness, I've been sending YouTube links around (and receiving them) just fine. Dunno where the problem is.

Well, I tried both Adium and the official Messenger for Mac, and YouTube links got blocked on both of them.

Re:

[rob1980]

Same on Trillian... dunno what this guy is talking about, or when the last time he tried was

Re:

[LaskoVortex]

Same on Trillian... dunno what this guy is talking about, or when the last time he tried was

Joe Jay Bee (1151309) is either a microsoft fanboi or microsoft shill. Check out his previous comments. Also note how quickly he posted on this article. Some people live worthless lives as mercenary propagandists. I guess there is nothing any of us people who live meaningful lives can do about it.

Re:

[Joe Jay Bee]

Dude, I'm a Mac user, not to mention one who has submitted a package to Debian (a trivial, fairly pointless one yes, but a package nonetheless). You obviously didn't look back far enough to tbe one I made a few hours ago where I said that I'd like to not use MSN but have no real choice.

So yeah, not a shill, or a fanboi. :/

Re:

[aliquis]

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

Re:

[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.

But wait, there's more!

[justthinkit]

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.]

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

Re:

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Wow: Results 1 - 10 of about 20,400 for sites for whining Microsoft sycophants. I never knew there were so many!

Rickrolls

[Rinisari]

This is deeper than Rickrolls, folks. Microsoft has absolutely no reason to block an entire website because of such a phenomenon. However, there's not much of a way of getting around it other than using a URL shortening service or complaining like mad to MSN.

It's reasons such as this that make me prefer AIM/ICQ and Jabber.

Re:

[quanticle]

Well, as far as AIM/ICQ goes, AOL controls all the servers for that protocol, so you're no better off than with MSN. AOL could choose to block all YouTube links tomorrow and you'd be just as out of luck on AIM/ICQ.

Re:

[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:

[zappepcs]

Well, yes young man, there is a reason for MS to block an entire website. We should remember the chair throwing that must have taken place when Google sort of White-knighted Yahoo recently. I'm reasonably sure that there are *SOME* MS employees who did not appreciate it.

Of course, it could also (put your hat on) be someone related to Yahoo! who decided to make MS look bad? Not sure how, but it's the other side of the conspiracy coin.

It's hardly good business to do this on purpose, and if it's an accident...

Re:

[aliquis]

What would be cool would be if all MSN-compatible clients except Microsofts rewrote all youtubelinks to something like http://www.messengersuckuseabetternetworksuchasicqaimorjabber.com/vatch.php?id= [messengers...jabber.com]... which then forwarded you to the correct video. Working links and you informed them. But then Microsoft would block that url to .. ;D

This should surprise no one

[Presence2]

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

Re:

[aliquis]

"You couldn't go there you wanted today!"

"Where shall we take you today?"

Or maybe the best one: "Where do we want you to go today?"

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

Re:

[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:This seems rather foolish

[KrazyA1pha]

Well, someone certainly still has faith in humanity... N00b.

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:

[jeiler]

nb: I use Microsoft products, but I'm not a "fanboi."

what is the reasonable excuse for this ?

I don't know that there's any excuse for this. it sounds damn-foolish to me.

why shouldnt google censor keywords like microsoft, windows, xp, vista now ?

Because the folks at Google aren't idiots?

Like it or don't, Microsoft is the market--and though lately it sounds like they're doing everything possible to lose that position, they've got it for the time being. Why would Google block search terms for the

Re:

[aliquis]

why shouldnt google censor keywords like microsoft, windows, xp, vista now ?

Because Google don't do evil(tm.)

And this was posted on the Slashsphere?

[Leafheart]

A number of readers are sending word that the blogosphere and Twittersphere WTH is a Twttersphere? A new form on the R5 space?

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.

Re:

[Aranykai]

Seconded. Dont bother with the articles, they dont have any more information than the summary.

Why cant we go back to web 1.0? I actually liked being able to find information with a google search instead of using this tagging bullshit.

More sites appear blocked as well

[ThreeGigs]

deviantart.com
googlepages.com
mediafire.com
ebuddy.com
xanga.com

Workaround: don't add the "http://" in front of the address.

Re:

[thetoadwarrior]

Surprisingly no MS sites seem to have been blocked.

Re:

[yakumo.unr]

This is why I stopped using the official MSN client months ago, and swapped to pidgin, and now mostly Miranda IM (much lower resource use), if it really starts playing up as it's the servers blocking content and not the client then I can use the excellent OTR encryption plugin with those clients.

I got sick of being told something along the lines of 'a network error has occured' when they were actually just blatantly blocking normal URLs for no reason.

Remove http:/// [http] or www. from them and they go through ins

Re:

[AndGodSed]

The real uproar will come when slashdot gets blocked.

Correction, addendum

[Looce]

Sorry. I meant "Leaving the http:/// [http] in results in an error". Actually:

www.youtube.com/: blocked
youtube.com/: not blocked
http://www.youtube.com/ [youtube.com]: blocked
http://youtube.com/ [youtube.com]: blocked /watch?v=something: not blocked if you omit the host

ah

[Ariastis]

Thank you MS, for handicapping the only online service you had that i found useful. Now I can switch in peace...

3 Microsoft stories in a row?

[pembo13]

The empire is striking back! Everyone, brace yourself!

YIM?

[Ihmhi]

Doesn't MSNM and YIM share a network now? Does Yahoo Instant Messenger block YouTube links as well? If not, why not just ditch MSNM completely and use YIM now that the networks work with one another?

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:

[RightSaidFred99]

How is this insightful. By this retarded interpretation of the law, an IM that doesn't let me send you messages when you're marked "away" is breaking the law. Or one that doesn't let me send a .exe file as a link. Spam filters would break this law by your "logic". In short, your interpretation of the law is retarded.

Re:

[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:

[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.

Hanlon's Razor

[geckipede]

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." I'm having a hard time believing that stupidity stretches this far. My guess is that the MSN block list is maintained automatically and somebody found a way to feed bad data into the system.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Put tinfoil hats back in drawer...

[TheNetAvenger]

Earlier today some youtube links were being blocked.

Friend in Belgium alerted me to the issue, as trying to send a link across the room to her friend would even fail.

After some investigation...

It looks like it was a temporary error in the server response, so instead of saying yes, it would just deny the link out of default, suspecting an attack or a bot.

The server responses are now working correctly and so are the links.

Back to your tinfoil and OFFICIAL MS IS ALWAYS EVIL CLUB of the insane...

PS - How come when Google/Firefox re-routes or blocks URLs, (in error or for questionable reasonss) it never makes it to the front of SlashDot?

Get over MS, they dumped you or you them, they are your ex girlfriend, you have a new girlfirend(OS), quit stalking her... (Wait, bad analogy in a geek forum.)

Star Wars Episode III screwed you, get over it... (Better analogy?)

because they don't :)

[someone1234]

Never seen Google or Firefox blocking an URL, but i read Google does something in China. So it is false that it doesn't make to the headlines.
Truth is, i have never seen M$ blocking one either, but it is because i don't use M$ IM.

Re:

[TheNetAvenger]

Here's a cute one:

For quite a while, when you clicked a link from Google Search it rewrote the URL redirect and sent the information to Google...

(Simple MouseDown JavaScript)

It still may do this in Firefox, can't remember if this was totally removed after a few consumer group complaints or not. IE doesn't respect this type of redirect, and can't test at the moment.

As long as ....

[PPH]

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

You've got it all wrong

[CSMatt]

Microsoft is trying to lessen the stupidity of YouTube comments by blocking the posters of said comments at the source.

Re:Its not censorship

[wizardforce]

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

Re:

[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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[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 i

Re:

[urcreepyneighbor]

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

Uh, yeah, actually it does.

Censorship is something the government can try/do, not a company or individual.

I think MS is being beyond stupid with this little game (if they are, that is), but it's their servers and their software.

Don't like it? Use something else. It's not like their aren't a hundred IM apps out there.

And most of them are populated with just as many "13/f"'s looking for love. ;)

Re:

[wizardforce]

you're being pedantic, and btw: various definitions: *The practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable according to certain standards. *Action taken to prevent others from having access to a book or information; a public objection to words, subjects and/or information in books, films, and other media with the idea of depriving others from reading or viewing them. *Decisive acts of forbidding or preventing publication or distribution of media products, or parts of those

Re:Its not censorship

[Curien]

The English word "censorship" has a long and glorious history of applying to entities other than governments. But by all means, continue with your Orwellian attempts to change the language to suit a particular political view.

Re:

[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:

[wizardforce]

their servers, their software, their conversation? which brings up a few points, if a government owns the servers and software, does that mean that it's ok for them to do what they please with the data that comes across? why wouldn't that be censorship? if it is censorship, then why does this rule of yours that it is "their servers and their software" only apply to anyone except the government??? for that matter, would it by extension, be ok for them to modify, insert or otherwise mangle what you send d

Re:

[RightSaidFred99]

And...? What's your point? The only bad censorship is government censorship. Any other form is perfectly legal. I'm "censoring" someone if I don't let them scrawl graffiti on my house, am I now the boogeyman? Your right not to be censored ends at my property, and sometimes well before.

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

[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.

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:

[nurb432]

No, but the slashdot tag icons did.

Re:True, however...

[canuck57]

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.

No problems with gtalk [google.com]. Users being blocked ought to switch.

Wonder what Google will do to retaliate. MSN is Microsoft, YouTube is Google. Court or MS-WAR? (MS-Windows Annihilation and Replace). But this could get real interesting fast.

Re:

[Adambomb]

I agree entirely, and to take it a bit further..

This isn't only not censorship, it's not even evil. It's simply stupid.

When i think of the number of users who are consistently pasting youtube urls to each other...and then think of the number of users who would actually bother using the microsoft video service, i fail to see how there could possibly be a gain in this beyond drastically reducing the number of MSN and Windows Live messenger users in the end overall.

Maybe they just want to get rid of the hippie

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:

[nurb432]

Yes, they can. But you can also choose to move to another service.

Re:Its not censorship

[TheLinuxSRC]

Actually, in GP's example, Verizon enjoys common carrier status. If they were to filter based on anything, they would lose that status.

Re:

[DAldredge]

No - this isn't government censorship. See entities and people other than governments can censor.

Re:

[Shatrat]

Yes, it is.
Just because there isn't a clause in the constitution dealing with non-governmental censorship doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Re:

[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.

Re:

[nurb432]

I clearly see the censorship tag on the story. You know, the guy with a black line across his mouth.

So no, i'm not the one doing that.

Re:I call BS

[stg]

That is very easy to test. I tested it yesterday with a friend and also today and in both cases the url send failed.

If I remove the http and www it works, it also works if I change the youtube domain name...

Re:I call BS

[Anpheus]

Wow, a URL block fails to catch it if you change the URL's domain name? What happens if you change the TLD? Jesus christ, someone alert... the someone in charge of this madness! It must be stopped!

Re:

[Mateo_LeFou]

The latest versions of Vista Genuine Service Pack Premium are able to tell that when you type domain name X, you really meant domain name Y.

For example, it knows utube.com means youtube.com (and should be blocked) and it knows that google.com means "live.com" and so on.

Their brilliance brings a tear to me eyes.

Re:

[rbanffy]

Where are you and your friend?

Just testes this in Brazil (sender and receiver) with the url "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Fbk52Mk1w" and it worked. The traditional http://server.com/download.php [server.com] is still blocked.

Re:I call BS

[ShinSugoi]

Just tried it. They are indeed blocking Youtube links; You'll get an error immediately if you try to send someone a message including a URL with youtube.com in it.

Re:I call BS

[Vampyre_Dark]

Mod me down. They literally must have implemented it in the last 15 minutes, because as of right now, they are blocked, but weren't (for me) right before the I posted the first time.

Re:

[eihab]

It's Saturday.

I'm at work you insensitive clod!

Re:

[Doppleganger]

I just tested with a friend, the same youtube URL failed to go through twice (and not a rickroll or anything, just a cat on a treadmill). Went through fine on yahoo chat, though. And she just tried sending one back, getting a message that it couldn't be delivered.

Re:Just use a different IM client...

[quanticle]

The thing is, this isn't being blocked at the client level. Its the servers that are blocking these links. Even if you switch to a different client, like Adium, or Pidgin, these links will be filtered.

Re:

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

That's okay, they're Microsoft's servers too. I agree with GP - if you don't like it, use a different service.

Re:

[Joe Jay Bee]

Herm, the idiot whose friends all use MSN? Trust me, I'd love to switch away from MSN - to Skype, or AIM or iChat or something that actually has video support under Mac OS X (to MS apparently OSX's APIs are just things that are there for other people), but everyone I know uses MSN. Everyone. So until I can somehow convince about 20 people to do something which to them is just too much effort, I have to use it. Sadly.

Re:

[skeeto]

Pidgin can still send YouTube URLs through MSN if you (and the person at the other end) use something like Pidgin-Encryption [sourceforge.net]. The reason is because they don't know what you are saying in the first place: end-to-end encryption.

vote with your wallet - upgrade messaging clients

[SgtChaireBourne]

... Use something else.

One of the best is pidgin [pidgin.im], which runs a wide range of protocols. That's a step in the right direction and helps wean people off of MSN and into better services and more useful technologies.

However, from the article it looks like the problem is at the MS servers. So staying on MSN, even with a better client, is still helping feed money (via ads and such) into more anti-competitive behavior and barriers to interoperability.

What should also be mentions is that MSIE now gives 'security' warning messages when accessing Google's Gmail. No. I neither use nor condone use of MS in any way shape or form, but I do check up on those who claim they feel compelled to do so and use them to check periodically. Now that MS is going after Google, Gmail gets the errors. Now that MS is going after Youtube, it gets MS errors, too.

The courts don't won't can't keep up with all these illegal/unethical anti-competitive tactics. The only effective option is to just stop funding it. And that boils down to not using the products, formats, protocols or services tied to that company.

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. :)

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

[Stormwatch]

As I understand it, both AOL and Yahoo have more IM users than MS does

Depends where you look. Here in Brazil, for example, everyone uses MSN (usually the official client -- a security minefield and a disgraceful interface). And there was some story here, I recall, about how ICQ was still the leader at some countries.

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:

[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:

[diegocgteleline.es]

Messenger is bigger [wikipedia.org] than AOL+Yahoo

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

[xaxa]

They do have a monopoly in the UK (and perhaps many other countries in Europe). No one I've ever met uses AIM, a couple of people use Yahoo but they seem to have MSN anyway.

Re:

[aliquis]

Yahoos IM and Microsofts one are compatible so that's probably why they seem to have MSN aswell.

Here in Sweden everyone use MSN aswell, which suck.

I think ICQ was quite large in Germany still, Poland have their own IM-client and ICQ are still biggest in Russia aswell. So it all depends on where you live.

I guess people switched because of Hotmail being bought by Microsoft, included Messenger in the OS and the webcam support.

Re:

[gaspyy]

It's interesting to note that the pseudo-monopoly happens 'organically', without any intervention; new users simply pick whatever their friends use.

Everyone I know in UK uses MSN. Meanwhile, everyone here in Romania uses Yahoo.

This is also true with other social networking, as here everyone is on hi5; myspace is seldom used while facebook is unheard of.

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!

Re:from RFC 4824 : NAK is

[heatdeath]

Not a TCP NAK, an MSNP NAK. MSNP messaging uses a NAK'ing model. (So, unless you get a response back, your message is assumed to have succeeded)

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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:

[heatdeath]

If you worked at microsoft, you would understand that what is perceived as insidious on the outside can be seen for idiocy on the inside.

Re:

[aliquis]

Yeah, Microsoft are wellknown for their filtering capatibilities. Just see how noone receives spam on hotmail ;)

Re:

[Tranzistors]

Well, the link has nothing to do MS, but I sure as hell would like it to be blocked.

Re:

[LingNoi]

I was about to mention the same thing here, they censor a ton of keywords and worse of all they don't send any error notice, it looks like it went through on your end and on the other side it look like you didn't send a message.

Stupid, all so they can compete with php..