Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Facebook Blocks Users From Mentioning BugMeNot.com

Posted by CmdrTaco on Fri Sep 05, 2008 01:00 PM
from the sorry-charlie dept.
ThinkingInBinary writes "The other day, I was trying to mention bugmenot.com in my Facebook status, and I discovered to my horror that Facebook blocks the phrase 'bugmenot.com' as "abusive" in status updates, messages, and presumably any other communications on the site. Facebook isn't even listed on BugMeNot, as they requested that logins for Facebook be blocked. This is pretty ridiculous, as I can't even send my friends a message mentioning bugmenot.com!"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by MyLongNickName (822545) on Friday September 05 2008, @01:02PM (#24890919) Journal

    On Slashdot, I can mention [abusive language filtered] or even [abusive language filtered], why can't I do it on [abusive language filtered]?

    Total [abusive language filtered], I say.

    • by pilgrim23 (716938) on Friday September 05 2008, @01:08PM (#24891023)

      Years ago I recall a tracking system at a place I worked where the text field was parced as code. It saw the word "in" apearing in the sentence in text as an INSERT and the word preceeding it as a variable in which it would insert the word following, then truncate everything else.
          Thus the phrase

        THERE IS A FIRE IN THE BUILDING! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES
        would show as

      THERE IS A THE.

      Later this was repaired and the designer went on to work developing web design at
      Facebook....

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 05 2008, @02:29PM (#24892369)

      ...but it's not. I just entered "bugmenot.com" in my FB status line and it worked just fine.

    • by RobBebop (947356) on Friday September 05 2008, @02:33PM (#24892431) Homepage Journal

      On Slashdot, I can mention cocks and cunts or even fucking assholes, why can't I do it on Facebook?

      Total shit-eating-pigfuckers, I say.

      There, fixed that for you.

      • by adamofgreyskull (640712) on Friday September 05 2008, @03:57PM (#24893843) Homepage

        On Slashdot, I can mention cocks and cunts or even fucking assholes, why can't I do it on Facebook?

        Total shit-eating-pigfuckers, I say.

        There, fixed that for you.

        On Tue, 13 May 2008 ******* wrote:

        I try to live a good clean life by learning all I can and nurturing my body and spirit. I'm afraid that I will not be able to become part of your community as I find it sick. Sick in mind body and soul. Why your people deem it necessary to use the language that they do I can never understand. Women, children and people of faith will never be able to learn what you have to impart because of the filth you are tending in this rank garden. Please stop sending me email.

        This is why we can't have nice things [slashdot.org]

    • by Tweenk (1274968) on Friday September 05 2008, @03:38PM (#24893499)

      Reminds me of the clbuttic filtering mistake [thedailywtf.com], which is mbuttively worse. I think you should rebuttess the severity of this.

          • Re:Fuck Godwin (Score:5, Informative)

            by Mister Whirly (964219) on Friday September 05 2008, @02:44PM (#24892637) Homepage
            Whether or not the mention pertains to the discussion is irrelevant. Also, there is not a negative connotation about Godwin's Law, as many people believe. So many people misinterpret Godwin's by thinking if what they say is true or fits the situation somehow, it isn't Godwin's. It still is, you just don't know the actual law. So here it is:

            Godwins Law
            "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

            That is the entirety of it.
  • Yes you can (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Friday September 05 2008, @01:02PM (#24890921) Journal

    This is pretty ridiculous, as I can't even send my friends a message mentioning bugmenot.com!

    Of course you can, you just can't use Facebook. Which is probably for the best anyway.

    • Good point, parent (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kludge (13653) on Friday September 05 2008, @01:07PM (#24891017)

      Allowing a single corporate entity to control your communication is a bad idea. I suggest this new thing called "email", which is offered by a large number of different providers, and not censored by most.

    • Re:Yes you can (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AKAImBatman (238306) * <(akaimbatman) (at) (gmail.com)> on Friday September 05 2008, @01:09PM (#24891051) Homepage Journal

      Indeed. I'm trying very hard to get incensed here, but I just can't work up a reason to care. Oh noes! I must say "Bug Me Not website" when talking about BugMeNot! Horror of horrors! Shocker of Shockers! Quick, make a comparison to Nazi totalitarism! Facebook is like... Hitler, that's it!

      Conspicuously absent is any mention of negative actions taken by Facebook. They didn't close his account, they didn't sue him, they didn't kick his dog. They didn't do anything other than remove a link to a site. Whoop de do. Try typing a URL into Youtube comments sometime and see how far you get.

      • by Net_fiend (811742) on Friday September 05 2008, @01:31PM (#24891393)

        Why does a dog always have to be kicked? Why can't it be a cat or a rabbit?

        Now, I understand why it wouldn't be a snake or a lizard. One a snake would a)slither away or b)bite the bejesus out of you and a lizard would probably just flick its tongue and scamper off.

        But can we just leave the dogs out of it? This message is not brought by PETA.

      • by amRadioHed (463061) on Friday September 05 2008, @02:04PM (#24891961)

        Quick, make a comparison to Nazi totalitarism! Facebook is like... Hitler, that's it!

        Oh sure you joke about it, but if you read anything written in Germany while the Nazis were in charge you'll find that bugmenot.com is missing from all those writings as well.

        • Re:Yes you can (Score:5, Informative)

          by Irish_Samurai (224931) on Friday September 05 2008, @02:06PM (#24891993)

          Uhhhh, the 1st only applies to what the US Government can't do, not to what a private company can do with it's free service.

          With that, I hope you were being sarcastic.

          • by OneIfByLan (1341287) on Friday September 05 2008, @04:07PM (#24894017)

            Time for remedial Civics, once again. I swear, it's like public schools are even working any more...

            The First Amendment wasn't written in a vacuum. It was part of a centuries-old conversation in Europe that took place amongst people like Milton and Rousseau. Let me distill centuries of thought and arument down to a sentence for you.

            Hiding the truth is bad.

            It's bad when the government does it. It's bad when companies do it. The more power an entity has, the worse it is. Free men should be unafraid and unashamed to speak their minds. Anyone who tries to squelch that speech is evil.

            The cure for bad speech is more speech. There needs to be free and open debate on everything, and when there is, only the Truth is strong enough to prevail.

            We don't like censorship in this country. We don't like men who try to muzzle people. We don't stop the KKK by forbidding them to speak. We stop them by calling them a group of inbred idiots and laughing at them.

            If you want to do public business in this country, then you need to learn to understand the rules. We don't squelch speech here. The Bills of Rights is merely a list of examples. It was made explicit that our freedom in this country is the DEFAULT setting.

            It's not that since the First Amendment pertains to government, then companies can squelch speech. It's that nothing GIVES companies the right to do it.

            If not even the government has the right to stifle conversation, then it's for damn sure that mere companies can't either.

             

            • by Irish_Samurai (224931) on Friday September 05 2008, @05:03PM (#24895035)

              Wow, did you fail Civics or what?

              The Bill of Rights only lays out what the Government can't do. Exercising powers granted through property rights isn't censorship. No speech was even squelched here. A specific term has been labeled by a filter. The service can be discussed, it can even be linked to through other means - you just can't use "bugmenot.com".

              I'm sure you have no problem with this type of thing for your spam filter.

  • by 2.7182 (819680) on Friday September 05 2008, @01:02PM (#24890923)
    You can't block someone from saying something like
    • by halivar (535827) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [reglefb]> on Friday September 05 2008, @01:06PM (#24890985) Homepage

      30 seconds is the different between (Score:5, Funny) and (Score:-1, Redundant).

      I think moderation should switch to (Score:Gold Medal) and (Score:Silver Medal) so late punsters don't feel so bad.

      • by Hogwash McFly (678207) on Friday September 05 2008, @01:24PM (#24891293)

        Yeah, but do we take away the (Score: Gold Medal) from the Chinese posters who lied about their karma bonus?

      • by sm62704 (957197) on Friday September 05 2008, @02:05PM (#24891967) Journal

        I think moderation should switch to (Score:Gold Medal) and (Score:Silver Medal) so late punsters don't feel so bad.

        The trouble is if your karma's not the best; "funny" will neither increase nor decrease your karma, while iinm "redundant" is bad for your karma. So if you're going to joke, it's best to make sure you have damned good karma. Not only is there the "redundant" danger, you can (and I often do) get modded "troll" or "flamebait" by the humor-impaired (or maybe because the joke's just not funny).

        If you just got done metamoderating you can post anything you damned well please ;)

        I don't understand the term "karma whore", whouldn't a karma whore be someone selling karma by modding people up for money? If you're trying to gain karma wouldn't that make you a karma john? According to some arsewaddles in town called PORA who are trying to stamp out prostitution, the poor little whores are victims. So please, stop victimising karma whores by modding them up!

        Oops... I'm offtopic. Damned prostitution union will kick me out!

        Do we have any karma pimps?

  • by bigtallmofo (695287) * on Friday September 05 2008, @01:02PM (#24890931)
    Everyone seems to have a problem with it. It's really bugged me that I've never been able to get to bugmenot from work:

    Access to this web page is restricted at this time.

    Reason:
    The Websense category "Hacking" is filtered.

    URL:
    http://www.bugmenot.com/ [bugmenot.com]
  • by bunratty (545641) on Friday September 05 2008, @01:03PM (#24890955)
    They don't anyone to know this, but the way around it is to
  • honestly (Score:4, Insightful)

    there is no reason why they cannot do this. it is their website, their policy. of course they will piss some people off, of course they went ahead with this filter fully aware it would bother some people

    on the flip side, you are not a zombie craven to facebook. it is entirely in your power to use some other service. facebook is not the end all be all.

    there was geocities, tripod, xanga, friendster, myspace, and now facebook. it is time for you to simply discover the next social networking app in a long line of apps that come and go every couple of years

    • Re:honestly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Osurak (1013927) on Friday September 05 2008, @01:11PM (#24891085)
      Of course they *can* do it. The issue is whether they *should* do it.
    • Re:honestly (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Rakishi (759894) on Friday September 05 2008, @01:19PM (#24891235)

      They can do whatever they want. Likewise we can complain and make fun of them for what they do all we want. If nothing else it lets others know about what the companies policies are and sometimes it may even make the company change their policies.

      Companies are run by humans and sometimes they make mistakes or underestimate how much people don't like something. If you don't let them know then how do expect them to know? Magic? Telepathic elves trapped in the basement?

    • Re:honestly (Score:5, Funny)

      by Jay L (74152) * <jay+slash@@@jay...fm> on Friday September 05 2008, @01:33PM (#24891419) Homepage

      I, personally, agree 100% with circletimessquare when he says:

      there is no reason why they cannot do this. it is their website, their policy.

      But some would beg to differ. For a counterpoint from a simpler era, let's turn to a user named "circletimessquare", back in early September, 2008, who wrote [slashdot.org]:

      shun chrome. i don't care if its the best thing since sliced bread. the problem is what it represents in terms of power and dominance in the hands of one company. that's bad for everyone

      Clearly, the debate over corporate dominance has bitterly divided friends, families, and even individuals.

  • works for me (Score:4, Informative)

    by djdead (135363) <sethNO@SPAMwenchel.com> on Friday September 05 2008, @01:24PM (#24891295)

    I just tried throwing "bugmenot.com" into my status update and it showed up on my wife's account.

    perhaps the best way to unblock things is to submit them to /.

  • by drDugan (219551) on Friday September 05 2008, @01:43PM (#24891569) Homepage

    Facebook users seem so confused. Facebook, Inc. *OWNS* the website facebook.com - they can do basically whatever they want with it. tough cookies.

    the basic premise of physical property is that if you do work on something and make a new thing, then you own it. own meaning society agrees you have exclusive rights to control where and how a thing is used. we have all sorts of other modern day legal and monetary things that also mean you own things, like titles and deeds and receipts. largely, these ideas of ownership have spilled over into the information, too, and rightly so - controlling the use and application of certain information for limited time helps society a lot. many of the current out-of-control IP systems are a bit slanted toward big organizations, but still, all in all IP is a good thing.

    people own their personal connections to other people. you made them. an individual is the only person who know how another has treated them, how well they like them or hate them, if they would invite them over to a party next Friday. except, of course, if a person decided to give that information away by publishing it on a global communication system. once you do that, you don't own it any more, then it's like loose change on the sidewalk.

    so when you join facebook, you give away your information, your connections to other people. and this is valuable stuff - it's no wonder pie-in-the-sky valuations for facebook are over $15B and growing. If asked to sell the same information, people simply wouldn't, they would and have simply keep it private, and rightly so.

    that said, I made a facebook profile. I resisted it for years, but when we wanted to build a app to reach people, the facebook platform worked really well. I still see it as an inequitable exchange, though - Facebook makes explicit and public the information that is valuable to the individual when held private. In doing so, most users give far more to Facebook than they receive in return. it's just business.

  • by Hurricane78 (562437) <navid,zamani&googlemail,com> on Friday September 05 2008, @01:44PM (#24891583)

    ...as soon as they allowed others to block sites from bugmenot.

    They killed the point of using them.
    Nowadays more and more sites are blocked on bugmenot.
    So much in fact that I uninstalled the Firefox* add-on.

    Does anyone know an alternative?
    Preferably one that's offshore and will not bow to any idiot sending them a complaint.

    * The Firefox spell checker does not know the word "Firefox"? WTF? ;)

  • by onlysolution (941392) on Friday September 05 2008, @01:45PM (#24891623)
    Did anyone else notice the little iframe in the bugmenot page? That links back to the ttuttle.com site the original blog post is on? According to Chrome's nifty element inspector it's pointing back to http://www.ttuttle.net/396jdw.php [ttuttle.net], though it's obviously slashdotted by now so I have no idea what it's supposed to do or if that address is unique.
  • by assassinator42 (844848) on Friday September 05 2008, @01:52PM (#24891729)
    As of now, Facebook offers users the ability to switch between the new layout (new.facebook.com) and the previous layout. I can switch my status to "Matt likes bugmenot.com" on the old layout but trying to do so on the new layout pops up a box stating "Warning: This Message Contains Blocked Content".
    • What Bug Me Not is (Score:5, Informative)

      by KingSkippus (799657) * on Friday September 05 2008, @01:25PM (#24891307) Homepage Journal

      Just for reference for those who may also be blocked or otherwise can't get to it...

      You know all those sites where you have to register for a free account in order to access the content, sites where there's no real logical reason why you should have to register for an account except for the purpose of them harvesting your e-mail and personal information?

      What Bug Me Not does is provide usernames and passwords for registrations that people have created and uploaded to their site that you can use to access content without giving up your personal information.

      Perhaps a simple example would make it more clear. Let's say you go to some news site, and they insist that in order to access the site, you register for a free account. Of course, they want your name, address, and e-mail address. Even after you fill out your information, they drop you a registration e-mail that you have to validate. Then, and only then, you can access the site.

      If you don't want to go through these hoops or give up your information to them, what you can do instead is go to Bug Me Not. Punch in the site name, and voila, you get a username and password you can use to access the site that someone else has already registered. If one doesn't exist and you're motivated enough, you can register one (probably using a service like Mailinator) and provide the username and password so that the next schmoe that comes along that needs one will have it.

      There's also a nice Bug Me Not Firefox extension [mozilla.org] that will automagically fill in the information for you so that you don't even have to bother going to the web site.

      The only problem, as someone else mentioned, is that if you're behind a content filter, some companies tag Bug Me Not as a "hacking" site. (As is Mailinator, usually.) Obviously, some people have trouble with the concept of people who don't like giving out their personal e-mail addresses or other personal information just to read a frickin' article.

    • by rah1420 (234198) <rah1420@gmail.com> on Friday September 05 2008, @01:21PM (#24891247)

      At the risk of getting the hook set in my mouth, I am going to dive in and take the big risk that you know that "Freedom of Speech" only refers to the law that Congress can't abridge it. [usconstitution.net]

      I'm sure you realize that it doesn't at all stop private people or entities from abridging "freedom of speech" (sometimes called 'freedom of speach') all they want?

      • by belmolis (702863) <billposer@alum.mit . e du> on Friday September 05 2008, @01:58PM (#24891841) Homepage

        you know that "Freedom of Speech" only refers to the law that Congress can't abridge it.

        Not true at all. You're thinking of the First Amendment. The First Amendment is a particular feature of the US Constitution and doesn't have any legal force in other countries or apply to non-governmental entities in the United States. (By virtue of the 14th Amendment, it applies to the States as well as to the federal government.) "Freedom of Speech", on the other hand, is a value that exists independent of the US Constitution. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the constitutions of many other countries and in such documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org], Article 19 of which reads:

        Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

        • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Friday September 05 2008, @02:42PM (#24892575) Homepage Journal

          The First Amendment is a particular feature of the US Constitution and doesn't have any legal force in other countries or apply to non-governmental entities in the United States.

          But at one time, the First Amendment, along with the other liberties guaranteed by our Constitution, were a shining example to those who sought their own liberty while living under authoritarian rule. In my lifetime, America was really a beacon of liberty for the world.

          Thanks to fearmongering and the heavy-handed lovers of power, those days are gone, probably forever. We're not the "shining city on the hill" that Reagan spoke of anymore. In fact, he was one of the ones who started the ball rolling down that very hill.

    • by Bieeanda (961632) on Friday September 05 2008, @01:34PM (#24891433)
      Since when has Facebook been about anything but data mining and user tracking?
    • by globaljustin (574257) <jeffersonhuxley@@@gmail...com> on Friday September 05 2008, @01:34PM (#24891443)

      another "Do more evil" clone?

      Yes. If you've looked at their redesign that will be implemented soon, you know what I mean. They basically split the functions of the site across 4 or 5 pages instead of just the one, so now you have to click more to see the same amount of content. The whole redesign is made to get more page views of their ads.

      I hate it, but I'm old. I remember when the internet and the WWW came to suburbia back in the mid 90s. Almost all internet sites were free, if you had the hardware to access them, just like facebook.com is right now. It's free.

      Somehow, someone who has no understanding of economics managed to convince themselves that facebook.com was worth hundreds of millions for investment. It's not. It never will be. It's a free website that has some cool widgets and lets you keep up with your friends. It's not like they have a patent on social networking.

      Here's what will happen. Facebook will have to continually make its interface more intrusive in order to please their investors and advertisers. As that happens, they will loose users. Eventually another site will pop up that has the same functionality as facebook.com only without all the BS. People will begin to use it, and the internet circle of life continues.

    • by Whuffo (1043790) on Friday September 05 2008, @02:19PM (#24892205) Journal
      Being someone who ran a large BBS back in the olden days I can offer some insight into why we verified each new account.

      There were some significant expenses involved in supplying the service. An incoming phone line and high speed modem for each "node", rows of computers, file servers, networking - and all of this could only support a limited number of simultaneous users.

      What we were trying to stop were the people who would register several accounts in order to use more online time - preventing others from being able to log in. The whole point of verified user accounts was just that - to insure that the resources of the BBS were shared fairly.

      Things are different now; not many of us here remember when a good 9600 baud modem cost $1000. Multiply that by 25, then add the monthly charges for 25 phone lines, etc.

      We couldn't just "add more lines" to support every person who wanted to use the system for as long as they wanted, so limiting the amount of online time was necessary. Verified user accounts were there to insure that everyone got their share because some felt it was their right to take more for themselves.

      These days you can put up a website that does most of what a BBS did, support thousands of simultaneous users - and do it for far less than the cost of one of those modems. The sites that require registration (and don't verify that the registration is legitimate)- their motives are questionable at best. The information they're collecting has a very low signal to noise ratio due to services like Bug Me Not and the basic truth that most people fill those registration forms out with false information. Sometimes I suspect that those news sites require registration "because all the other news sites do it"...

    • Re:Not true? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 05 2008, @03:08PM (#24892973)

      I wrote a long note about BugMeNot and facebook's censorship, and it posted just fine.

      An hour later (now), I checked facebook and my published note has vanished. Gone without a trace. No warning, no e-mails, nothing, it's just not there. I'm putting up another note about censorship (without using the BugMeNot phrase this time) to see what happens.

      Regardless of what happens, I will be cancelling my facebook account by the end of next week. This is absolutely ridiculous.