Facebook Messaging Blocks Links 143
jhigh writes "With the launch of the new Facebook messaging system designed to encourage account holders to utilize Facebook for all of their messaging needs, one would think that Facebook would recognize that it cannot continue to block content that it disagrees with. However, Wired reports that Facebook messaging, like the rest of the social networking application, continues to block links to torrents and other file sharing sites, even when users are sending messages via their facebook.com email address. Say what you want about the morality of using file sharing services to share copyrighted material, if Facebook wishes to become a player in the email market, they cannot block content."
Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
if Facebook wishes to become a player in the email market, they cannot block content.
"Messaging" and "e-mail" are not the same thing. Problem solved?
Re:Nope. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
Blocking sites on copyright grounds is one thing but mis-declaring sites they have a personal beef with as the source of malicious installs is quite another.
You must be joking (Score:3, Insightful)
The entire Facebook and social networking business model is about penning users into a coral and preying upon their personal information for its marketing potential. Anyone who buys into the technology must is basically signing on to be fleeced as companies like Facebook, Myspace, etc. fleece them for what they are worth.
Facebook is the internet on training wheels, for those who need the assist.
Re:You must be joking (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook is the internet on training wheels, for those who need the assist.
Apparently it hasnt occured to you that some people actually find it USEFUL for keeping up with a large number of contacts.
Re:You must be joking (Score:4, Insightful)
An address book with a decent search engine works just as well. To keep in contact send them an e-mail. No need to outsource this to some company that may or may not abuse the information that is in their proprietary e-mail system.
Re: (Score:2)
Now be fair they might be one of those people that thinks keeping in contact means with someone is constituted by reading their impersonal broadcast messages periodically, and broadcasting his or her own impersonal broadcast messages that the someone may more may not read.
I really think these social networks are pushing society apart far more than drawing it together.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ease of use and convenience is not only at the geek end - if you are keeping in touch with family members who think the internet is the big E, something they can use easily is a bonus.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a big fan of Facebook; but it is very good for keeping long term tabs on people that you might otherwise lose contact with. When travelling internationally I have used it on more than one occasion to re-establish lost contact. In an age where people move around allot it is certainly easier than trying to track them down via family and known associates.
But I would prefer to rely on email any other time. I can't stand the little textboxes that facebook supplies, I treat all facebook communications as
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're ever in the UK, come and have a drink with me and some people who use something wonderful called "Linux" that is just like Windows but free!
If you don't like the thought of meeting a random stranger off the internet, you could just use the word "Linux" in conversation until you meet someone who knows what it is and then cultivate your new friends circle around some contacts that this person knows too.
Either w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really doubt this is to do with a "personal beef" against anything.
The first thing to realize is that anti-spam systems tend to look only at the domain name parts of links (there are a few exceptions). The reason is that URL paths are "free" whereas domain names are not.
If the pirate bay is being rejected as spammy, then the most likely explanation by far is not some Facebook corporate policy against piracy but that it's obtained a bad reputation, or possibly started showing up in an external urldomain bl
Re:That's nothing (Score:4, Interesting)
ok.. now explain why lamebook is blocked with the following message:
The link you are trying to visit has been reported as abusive by Facebook users. To learn more about staying safe on the internet, visit our Security Page. You can also check out the malware and phishing Wikipedia articles.
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows? Maybe it was in fact reported as abusive. Or maybe Facebook are indeed trying to control the conversation and I'm wrong.
My point is people routinely report all kinds of things as spam. It's not uncommon for services to become identified as spammy even though the people running them don't think they're spammers. People hit "report spam" on anything they don't want, basically, especially if they can't figure out a way to get rid of it easily. For instance legit bulk mailers that have a poor unsubsc
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
Blocking sites on copyright grounds is one thing
Half of what my friends on Facebook post could be classified as 'copyright violations'. Maybe ISP's should block Facebook.
(you do want to play this game, Facebook, don't you?)
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent point: does Facebook really really want to get into selectively blocking messages sent through their system because of their content? Did they really think through the consequences of being responsible for a billion user posting a billion messages per day?
Re: (Score:2)
Blocking sites on copyright grounds is one thing but mis-declaring sites they have a personal beef with as the source of malicious installs is quite another.
Though true, and though I disagree with their behavior in such things, it is still within their rights to do so. The customer(s) will choose whether such restrictions make FB's service worthwhile or not.
Facebook and Content Blocking (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't engage in gross copyright infringement, nor do I share links that condone such behavior. That being said, I do offer legitimate torrents via Demonoid (legitetorrents is a crappy tracker). If I were to share a link to my legally shared content and I was blocked, or I couldn't share links to sites like Jamendo or ClearBits, I would very much be up in arms over this. Since I do not use FB messaging, I cannot say if such services are blocked.
The article is right, though. If FB wants to seriously become a player in the online messaging world, this content blocking garbage must stop.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Online forums and chats have been blocking URLs for years. People simply get around it by changing characters, breaking the URL up with spaces, or other things. Each system of blocking always has some way to get around it that's quite easy for a human to still understand, even non-tech people. I don't like them doing this either, but it's never been a real problem for anyone who actually wants to pass a URL along on other sites.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh I know, and I tend to not use those sites anymore (and if I encounter one, I avoid it from then on, it's just not useful to me). Unfortunately, the rest of FB is still useful for me, so again, I will just not use FB Messaging. Simple.
That's all I was really commenting on. I'm tired of sites that try to make it hard to share links, especially when they already have designed themselves to make doing so ridiculously easy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Facebook isn't under any kind of obligation to link to your torrent, legal or not. If you have legal content, you can link to your own SITE where users can find torrents for your content. This leaves the question of legality on you instead of Facebook. Honestly, I'd want that one level of separation if I was running a business, also.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, and if your SITE primarily provides illegal (in the US) access to copyrighted files, I'd block links to that, also.
These people that think the Internet is lawless to US citizens and they can do whatever they want because they're not "depriving anyone of anything" need to come back to reality. Get copyright law removed and then I'll defend you, but otherwise you're breaking the law.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
a hyperlink is breaking the law? go fuck yourself.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the most retarded fucking bit of illogic I've seen in weeks. Let's take a few more steps down this same line of thinking:
a) A site that contains no illegally hosted copyrighted material, yet that contains an index to the locations of both copyrighted and uncopyrighted material is illegal in your eyes.
b) Therefore, google is illegal as it is just such a site.
c) Internet connections are illegal as they give you access to google
d) Computers are illegal as they give you access to the Internet
e) Computer
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, Facebook isn't, but if they are providing a communications service, and I cannot use that service to link users to my content (legal or not), then it's a useless service.
I only brought in the legality of my torrents (which are fully 100% legal to share and distribute, as I created the content and licensed it thusly) because I felt a need to clarify that I do share links to content that has been licensed for legal sharing that happens to be torrented. If FB is breaking or blocking links to legit torrent
Re: (Score:2)
There's a big difference between "this content blocking garbage must stop" and saying Facebook is a "useless service" to you. I agree that it probably is worthless to you. I wouldn't have even made my post if that was all you said. But instead, you said that something "must stop", like Facebook has some kind of obligation to support links to specific sites.
Re: (Score:2)
When a website makes it easy to link to any site you want, to start censoring the links its users share is counter-intuitive, is garbage, and must stop (or stop making link sharing so easy). They made themselves obligated to link to whatever site users posts when they made it dead easy to share links.
Re: (Score:2)
Are the messages transferred through their system their property?
Does the US postal service has the right to look into letters to see if there's illegal content or opinions unfavorable to the USPS inside?
Has UPS? AT&T? Google Mail? Can Skype interrupt all calls that talk negatively about Skype's call quality? Is it admissible for Apple iPhones to block websites that advertise HTC smartphones and vice versa?
Since the consequences of this are endless, and in the appropriate political settings much more si
Re: (Score:2)
And that rises a related and interesting question: should it be?
The separation between "private business" and "government" made sense when the former was mainly small operations, and lack fo effective communication and fast travel made the world a huge place. As corporations have grown to rival power of nation-states, and world has become small enough for a single company to reach you anywhere, the difference has become uncle
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yep, pretty much sums it up. Perhaps I should have used smaller sentences.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you said "this content blocking garbage must stop", not that you would simply stop using the site or that it would become a useless service to you. You said that in a later comment, though, which I agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I said I do not use FB messaging. Read my OP.
I did say that "this content blocking garbage must stop", which it should. I've been blocked to legitimate sites several times because FB thinks I don't want to go there because other people reported it as offensive.
Why don't you read what I wrote before commenting.
Re: (Score:2)
Naturally? Psht.
Demographics (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Demographics (Score:5, Insightful)
I am more and more convinced that the type of people who are on Facebook, let alone those who actually will use messages, are not the types to know or be savvy enough for torrents and similar activities
I agree. It is becoming clear that FaceBook IS INDEED the new AOL.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I am more and more convinced that the type of people who are on Facebook, let alone those who actually will use messages, are not the types to know or be savvy enough for torrents and similar activities
if you want to communicate with your relatives and certain friends, you end up with a Facebook and/or Twitter account, regardless of how "savvy" you are.
Re: (Score:2)
I use a phone, usually. For calling and texting people, I mean. The things we used to use phones for, before this all-I-use-my-phone-for-is-facebook-and-twitter crap. :>
But i'm old school like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
that wouldn't be surprising since your FB login is based upon your email address.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I am more and more convinced that the type of people who are on Facebook, let alone those who actually will use messages, are not the types to know or be savvy enough for torrents and similar activities
if you want to communicate with your relatives and certain friends, you end up with a Facebook and/or Twitter account, regardless of how "savvy" you are.
Funny, about 10 years ago the same thing was being said about AOL/Instant Messenger accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
if you want to communicate with your relatives and certain friends, you end up with a Facebook and/or Twitter account, regardless of how "savvy" you are.
I think that is the point that people are missing. I was dragged kicking and screaming onto facebook a little over a year ago. But the fact is, it is the easiest, simplest and fastest way to keep up with friends and family, whom are scattered all over the USA. I also keep up with nieces and nephews that are somewhat close by (60m) and can just say 'hi' e
Re: (Score:2)
Unfriending Zuckerberg Now (Score:5, Funny)
He was a fun guy when he was a kid, but he's gotten to be really annoying as he's gotten older...
"Say what you want" (Score:2)
Say what you want about the morality of using file sharing services to share copyrighted material, if Facebook wishes to become a player in the email market, they cannot block content.
I don't know that Facebook's messaging is ultimately going to be successful, because it's attempting to compete (despite what it says) with well-established and well-used tools like email and text messaging - but I doubt that blocking links to file-sharing sites is going to have an impact on its fate.
I'm sure someone's going to make the "slippery slope" argument somewhere in this discussion, although with one data point that's hard to support.
of course they can block content! (Score:1, Insightful)
"if Facebook wishes to become a player in the email market, they cannot block content"
Do you honestly think most people care? If they cared about closed and controlled communications they wouldn't be using Facebook in the first place.
This is something approximately 15 geeks care about, and of those, 14 are not even using Facebook. FB might or might not succeed, but censoring emails will not be a factor either way.
eh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. really? You think the geeks talking about this will in any way compare the traffic about Glee, football or life in general?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is something approximately 15 geeks care about
I suspect that you vastly underestimate the popularity of casual file sharing.
They are mining messages for data/profit (Score:1, Interesting)
For facebook to alter the data in emails shows they are actually looking at the email. Not just for links they don't like but for any kind of data that they can use or sell. I would go as far to mention they are mining other social networks and creating a map of people's personal lives. People mindlessly give their personal data away for free and facebook turns around and sells it to any and everyone. Who needs identity theft when you can give away all your personal info on facebook.
Another way to look
Re: (Score:2)
Not just for links they don't like but for any kind of data that they can use or sell
Whether or not thats true, its pure speculation, and a hell of a reach. It is trivial (in forums for example) to set up filters that scan content as they are posted and automatically perform replacements-- I created such a filter once on a bbs. Doesnt mean the data GOES anywhere besides the bbs, it just gets processed prior to posting.
The fact that you get modded interesting is a little disturbing-- "interesting" for wild speculation and paranoia?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not just for links they don't like but for any kind of data that they can use or sell
Whether or not thats true, its pure speculation, and a hell of a reach.
Speculation? Possibly. A 'hell of a reach?' Not in the slightest.
I don't have access to the Facebook code base, and without it, the evidence I present here is nothing more than circumstantial. But consider: Some months ago, Facebook suggested I might want to friend a man whose name rang no bells to me, with whom I had no friends in common. He lives in Toronto, I live on the other side of the world.
Only after googling the name did I realise that this man runs a blog that I visit about twice a month. Once. ab
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> So... how did Facebook create this association? The only possibilities are: ...
3. Your Toronto contact permitted Facebook to upload the details of his e-mail address book.
Remind me again why, if you feel that you must be on Facebook, you're not using a unique e-mail address for that site?
Re: (Score:2)
Well google has lots of my info, and i really wish i could "tag" places on maps. so that searches like "work to grocery store to home" would work. Or be able to store 2-3 different routes for any starting and ending point combination in google, and do "target on my way home from work", "bank on the way to grandmas", etc.
I'd happily trade some more info to google(i use gmail, reader, search, youtube, already)to get better routing for new places on maps.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd happily trade some more info to google(i use gmail, reader, search, youtube, already)to get better routing for new places on maps.
And I would be happy for you, just do not REQUIRE me to do likewise and we are golden.
Don't force me to give my phone number to use your service.
Don't limit my OAuth options in responding to a blog. ONLY if I use Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn
Don't force me to do anything I do not want to do, or I will choose not to participate...I will vote with my dollars and you will not see even one of them.
Users have no credibility in protesting any more (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook, you shall not cross this line! No this line. Not this line. Wait ... ok, now don't cross this line.
Sorry, but I have a hard time seeing complaints about facebook as credible any more - surely by this point they've already driven away everyone who really cares about these sorts of things.
Re:Users have no credibility in protesting any mor (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but I have a hard time seeing complaints about facebook as credible any more - surely by this point they've already driven away everyone who really cares about these sorts of things.
That's like saying that the people bitching about the TSA's hobsian choice between nudie photos or a rub-and-tug have no credibility because the TSA's been ratcheting up the crazy for almost a decade now and if they aren't taking the train they deserve what they get. Because of the network effect, facebook is the only practical game in town for a lot of people who want that kind of service.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks dude. Although Hobbseian Choice might have been a better phrase even if it is a neologism - since Thomas Hobbes believed that abuse of power by the state (TSA in this case) was just an inevitable part of the price for the social contract of government.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think it's not a sliding scale? The value of Facebook changes over time, while the deterrents to using it - namely that people hate or don't trust Facebook Inc. - also change over time. It's an unstable system, as the value is created by the users, and as users bail, that value can fall apart pretty quick. And I've got 100 shares of Friendster to prove it.
Re:Users have no credibility in protesting any mor (Score:4, Insightful)
The mistake you make is thinking that the GP wants to keep in touch with people like you.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The mistake you make is thinking that the GP wants to keep in touch with people like you.
You are totally right. But the AC's opinion is equally valid and, unfortunately, far more common and he doesn't deserve to be rated "troll" for it - it is pretty much a fact of modern life.
Re: (Score:2)
It being a fact of modern life doesn't excuse it. If you can't be bothered to talk to friends offline, then maybe you don't really know what friends are.
I occasionally neglect my offline contacts too, I'm not innocent. But as soon as I realise that I've been doing that, I'll make sure to poke them and catch up. These are people I've shared important parts of my life with, and I'm not about to throw them out like garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't be bothered to talk to friends offline, then maybe you don't really know what friends are.
How would you talk to friends in person without abandoning all your friends in favor of new friends every time you follow the jobs to another state? Or are you defining "offline" to include the telephone? Or are you recommending the postal service? Or what am I failing to think of?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe we have a misunderstanding as to what constitutes a friend, as opposed to an acquaintance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and your life would be how much worse for it, exactly ?
More interestingly, how much time would you win for doing other, possibly more useful or interesting things ?
The difference between a friend and an acquaintance isn't quibbling over terminology, either, by the way. If you don't realise that, I pity you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't be bothered to talk to friends offline, then maybe you don't really know what friends are.
That itself seems to be part of your definition of a friend. That's a far cry from simply "wishing to keep in touch." I have to agree with the other guy, you are projecting your own personal definition of friend onto everyone else and then condemning those who don't require the same kind of social interaction that you do. That's pretty narcissistic.
Didn't hurt the iPhone (Score:2)
At least facebook seems to be blocking content based on a clear set of criteria. It's not as if they are blocking all links to Google services just because they don't like Google.
I'm sure there were many articles declaring that Apple would have to stop blocking Apps if they wanted the iPhone to succeed but user's didn't care. And no, the recent changes in the App Store rules (and their allowing of Google Voice) were not because of pressure from users - they were from F.C.C. pressure.
So, we here on /. migh
It's a fair warning (Score:1)
I generally know not to trust the technical savvy, honesty or intelligence of anyone who uses a yahoo.com address. I guess I can add facebook to the list.
Use bit.ly (Score:3, Insightful)
Not new (Score:1)
op-ed (Score:2, Funny)
Common Carrier rules.... (Score:2, Insightful)
So I worked many years ago for a USENet provider. We of course carried all groups. Everyone knew what was in USENet ad suffice to say discussion about what to do about things like the kiddie porn came up. The decision was made to shut down those groups. I mean it make's sense. Cut off access to those groups and stem the flow somewhat. Within 2 days of shutting the groups down we received a call from the FBI threatening to shut us down. They said by censoring anything we become responsible for ALL content on
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Why would the FBI do that? I could understand that a lawyer might contact you and say that, by "censoring" anything you become responsible for all the content, but I don't understand why the FBI would contact you to say that. Besides, if that's true, then it seems like all the filesharing sites that remov
Announces F2F & FBShare (Score:2)
Now with our omg Face 2 Face transfer protocol that instead of peers uses faces to share torrents facebook allows users to share copyrighted content so long as they subscribe to facebook premium ultra where users let facebook setup a live streaming video webcam impanted in each users eyesockets. This lets friends keep up to the second in some other person's live, and also allows direct advertisement streaming straight to the part of the brain that controls compulsive shopping.
Facebook Share allows users to
Who cares... (Score:2)
Facebook are only protecting their ass (Score:1, Insightful)
From the lawyers-happy groups known as RIAA and MPAA.
Virtually everything is copryrighted (Score:1)
They already are a player in the email market. Besides, they're trafficking copyrighted content constantly! As in, all the photos, messages, etc. written by users.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but they grant themselves a license to do so in the TOS... or rather the TOS say that you the copyright holder grants it to them of course.
Simple solution: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Centralization (Score:4, Insightful)
The Basic Principle Is: (Score:2)
This is based on past legal precedent, and the intent behind establishing "common carriers" of communications:
If you want to be a carrier, you must not supply, alter, intercept (except by judicial warrant), or control content. Content must be in good faith delivered, intact and unaltered, from sender to receiver. Just li
It a player just by showing up. (Score:2)
if Facebook wishes to become a player in the email market, they cannot block content.
This guy is kidding right? Facebook has 500 million active users, more than Hotmail. More than Gmail and Yahoo Mail combined. It is fair to say just by showing up they are a player.
Re:Good email systems blocks content (Score:5, Insightful)
Good email systems *allow* you to block content. Big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
and most spam filters simply dump to a folder and never actully delete messages for you.
Re:Good email systems blocks content (Score:5, Funny)
A BETTER email system does not place the burden upon you to decide what to block. It removes that choice from you, freeing up your time and resources.
This system is great - it takes known spam links, and blocks the SENDER from sending it.
Don't have to fish around spam folders wondering if you've ever missed a blocked email, because, you never got it in the first place.
This places the burden on the few sender, not the millions of receivers.
You really need to limit freedom to make it better. Remember, "choice" is a actually a cost. Each additional degree of freedom added to any system is one more bit of complexity, limiting its usefulness. The more complex you make a system, the less successful people are at using it.
It is why the iPod, and Facebook (its simplicity compared to myspace) dominates the market.
If you give people less freedom, they will be happier, since their main concern is what they practically do, not what they could theoretically do.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... no. You're wrong except for the part about unwanted messages not being delivered in the first place being better than just delievered to a special place. I've been doing that with plain old SMTP for years though.
Re: (Score:2)
A BETTER email system does not place the burden upon you to decide what to block. It removes that choice from you, freeing up your time and resources.
You really need to limit freedom to make it better. Remember, "choice" is a actually a cost. Each additional degree of freedom added to any system is one more bit of complexity, limiting its usefulness. The more complex you make a system, the less successful people are at using it.
What a tool comment. If you want to give me better filters fine, but not allowing me any level of fine control is unacceptable, I will stop using your product offering. Such is the case with privacy, cookies, Flash and Chrome/Internet Explorer compared to Firefox + Linux. (With Linux I can redirect the flash crap to /tmp and let it get erased between sessions, while unacceptable at least can be accomplished. Thankfully Flash is dying a slow death, it can not happen soon enough...that's what they get for
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard of the site before and it took me less than a minute to download a copyrighted music file from that site. Er, I mean, my friend did that. my foreign friend, not in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Also posted a torrent on my wall, also from TPB. It was just a Linux distro, so there wasn't any infringement, but I don't think Facebook has any way of knowing that.
Re: (Score:2)
Troll? Try it yourself!