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.

Rickrolls

[Rinisari (521266)]

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.

This should surprise no one

[Presence2 (240785)]

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

This seems rather foolish

[AmonEzhno (1276076)]

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

Nice Links - I guess it's Saturday

[iamhigh (1252742)]

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.

More sites appear blocked as well

[ThreeGigs (239452)]

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

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

They are gonna regret this

[eiapoce (1049910)]

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!)

Hanlon's Razor

[geckipede (1261408)]

"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:First

[dgatwood (11270)]

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. :-)

Re:First

[Roadstar (909257)]

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.

But wait, there's more!

[justthinkit (954982)]

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 (756137)]

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:Its not censorship

[wizardforce (1005805)]

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

Re:Its not censorship

[Curien (267780)]

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:Its not censorship

[Curien (267780)]

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 (578873)]

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:I call BS

[stg (43177)]

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 (908711)]

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:I call BS

[ShinSugoi (783392)]

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 (630787)]

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:Just use a different IM client...

[quanticle (843097)]

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.

vote with your wallet - upgrade messaging clients

[SgtChaireBourne (457691)]

... 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.

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

[Stormwatch (703920)]

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!

[im_thatoneguy (819432)]

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 (217147)]

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:Take off your tinfoil hats...

[Sibko (1036168)]

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!"