Facebook Blocks Users From Mentioning BugMeNot.com 448
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!"
Yes you can (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
FBmenot.com (Score:2, Insightful)
another "Do more evil" clone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point, parent (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:Yes you can (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
who the fuck? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Comminity vs. just facebook. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's their prerogative, but it's kind of ridiculous to expect somebody that just needs to read one answer on one occasion to have to create a log in.
It's not like sites covered by bugmenot are typically pay sites anyways, most of them just have the arrogance to think that somebody is going to come back after being treated like that.
As far as I'm concerned it's perfectly understandable why sites that allow posting would require a log in to post. But to require a log in to read free articles is a bit tough to stomach.
So, I just don't go to those sites. They could have had a couple extra views of the ads, but instead they get nothing at all.
Commercial sites are a completely different manner, and I think most of them have rules about log in sharing.
Re:who the fuck? (Score:1, Insightful)
Stop reading slashdot. You've got plenty of other choices...
Re:Good point, parent (Score:5, Insightful)
So? (Score:3, Insightful)
From your 'blog':
"... it's appalling for Facebook to block anyone from even mentioning the site -- it's plain and simple censorship, and it's unacceptable!"?
Why is it 'appalling' and 'unacceptable'? You do not own Facebook, and when you created an account, you pretty much waived your rights. If I recall correctly, Facebook is still a privately-owned company. They can block whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want.
If you don't like this policy, familiarize yourself with the Terms of Service [facebook.com] before you sign up to similar services.
You're always free to build your own alternative to Facebook; until then, you want to play in their playground, you play by their rules.
Re:honestly (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Comminity vs. just facebook. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That is ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, but anybody who has tried to post code, logs, or something atypical of normal prose on Slashdot has probably run into the lameness filter at one point or another and had to either "massage" it to sneak it past the filter, or simply delete that part of their comment.
Re:Yes you can (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, given that one is a website that you don't have to use, as against a country in which you live without a huge amount of choice, I'd say that analogy is absurd.
Re:another "Do more evil" clone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom is an illusion... (Score:3, Insightful)
you know that "Freedom of Speech" only refers to the law that Congress can't abridge it. [usconstitution.net]
A valid point in the U.S. but what does it mean to the majority of humanity?
ownership of information (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
An alternative (Score:2, Insightful)
Facebook has compulsory registration to view anything on the site, so it makes sense that they would block people from using something that (potentially) gets around it.
That said, how about not using sites that have compulsory registration to view content, like the NY Times? I don't read articles on that site because I refuse to register, despite it being free. Same goes for any other site that requires registration. I have plenty of choices to get information which do not require a special account to view said information.
So why not use the alternative, and go elsewhere? If a store has a policy you don't like, don't you stop shopping at that store? Same goes for NY Times, Facebook and others. If your friends won't follow you to another site in order to keep in touch (or God forbid, use email/IM), did you really want to be friends with them?
Re:another "Do more evil" clone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:who the fuck? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's this thing called the "firehose", where you can actually VOTE STORIES UP OR DOWN. Of course, it doesn't work in IE6 but then again, what does?
UsefulNot (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that BugMeNot will block logins for web sites that request it, what good are they? Why mention them at all?
Re:Freedom is an illusion... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yes you can (Score:2, Insightful)
When I was in school we made up a party poster that showed a dog with a gun to its head and the caption"Come to our party or we'll shoot the dog".
Outrage ensued - letters to the editor, threats to shoot us, calls to the SPCA to remove that poor dog that we are obviously abusing...
Kicker was, not only was the poster copied from one at another school (where it was the largest party of the YEAR!), it wasn't even our dog. in the picture.
The end of civilization won't be heralded by meteors, or volcanoes, or Al Gore - it will be when everyone finally loses their sense of humor.
Re:Yes you can (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does a dog always have to be kicked? Why can't it be a cat or a rabbit?
The purpose of the dog being kicked is to show how bad something is... Dogs are awesome, so anyone who kicks dogs is bad. QED.
Cats, on the other hand, are demon spawn of Satan, and should be kicked.
Re:What Bug Me Not is (Score:1, Insightful)
I can see why they would tag Bug Me Not as abusive. With Facebook, you'd pretty much get to log in anonymously. And then PM harass strangers or other account holders that way.
Oh yes, ridiculously simple! (Score:3, Insightful)
All one has to do is simply use something other than facebook.
And of course convince every single one of your friends, family, relatives, and work associates who's connected to you on facebook to ALSO leave, and all re-congregate at the new site of your choice.
This of course forces them to convince every one of THEIR friends, relatives, coworkers, etc to change to the site of YOUR choice. And so on and so on.
Because you didn't like the fact you can't post "bugmenot.com" specifically.
Yeah, that should be a breeze. Lemme know how that works out for you.
Gather 'round Papa Jefferson, kiddies. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Gather 'round Papa Jefferson, kiddies. (Score:4, Insightful)
Time for remedial constitutional interpretation, too.
Hiding the truth is bad.
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's illegal.
It was made explicit that our freedom in this country is the DEFAULT setting.
Including the freedom to limit discussion within your own private sphere of influence. If someone wants to talk about raping and pillaging in war-torn African countries, they're free to do so, but if you don't want to hear about it in your house or shop or blog, you can edit it out and/or tell them to leave.
It's not that since the First Amendment pertains to government, then companies can squelch speech.
Yes, it is. Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech. Even this is not without limits--there are many areas in which the exercise of "free" speech is restricted in particular environments for the good of others. No constitutional right is absolute.
It's that nothing GIVES companies the right to do it.
You don't need a law granting a right to do something, unless that particular right is held by someone else and the law enables you to do something that would otherwise be illegal. You need a law telling you that you cannot.
You don't have a freedom of speech right in a private environment, and that includes a website that does not belong to you or to the people. Period. If you don't like it, you're free to start your own website without those restrictions.
Re:That's impossible (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to try really really hard to get bad karma. I've told a lot of bad jokes that get modded down and I've never seen my karma drop below excellent. So yuk it up, if you ever have anything marginally worthwhile to say, you're karma will be pegged at exellent.
Re:Gather 'round Papa Jefferson, kiddies. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Terrifying. Absolutely terrifying. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your ignorance astounds me.
We take potshots at the cops as they retreat.
We take potshots a JBTs, not cops. Law enforcement, not CRIME PREVENTION as so many think the police are tasked with, is the fulcrum which civil disobedience gains its leverage from. If a LAW is unjust, the people revolt against the LAW - and agents acting on ENFORCING that law. The entities ABIDING by that law are dealt with through other methods such as boycott.
The Revolution was started when a bunch of cops shot at tax protesters in Boston.
The revolution was started when BRITISH SOLDIERS, not cops, shot at tax protesters in Boston. If you knew anything about geopolitics during the time period, you would know that colonies had many special powers regarding laws and governorship. These powers, and their subsequent dissolving, were the main causes of the revolution.
God, I hear you mealy-mouthed equivocators whining and lawyering away your Liberty, the Liberty that my family has spent blood across generations protecting. You're undeserving of it.
This mentality is the EXACT reason we have a Constitution. You want to talk about your family's service as if it were a rite of passage that allows you to make decisions on the freedom of others - well it doesn't. There are a limited number of reasons one enters the Service:
I'm willing to hear any other reasons why you, and your family, entered the service - but I'm pretty sure this covers it. That having been said, none of those reasons give you any weight when it comes to determining how anyone chooses to exercise their rights.
We speak our minds. We don't like censorship, not in any way, shape or form.
Actually, many people in this Nation DO want censorship. I guess we should just shut them up or shout them down, cause that's not censorship.
We're honorable. We don't torture prisoners. We don't outsource torture. We don't play word games about whether or not waterboarding is torture.
Actually we do all of this, so does every industrialized nation on Earth. IT ISN'T RIGHT, but it exists. Your whole opinion on this issue is anchored in an ideal WE ARE TRYING TO GET BACK TO.
We don't search your stuff until we've got damn good reason to think we're gonna find a dead body when we do.
Bullshit. There are many reasons the Police might search you that I don't agree with but that KEEP THEM ALIVE. Focus on the ABUSE, not the existence.
What the Hell is wrong with you simpering, spineless, Stockhom-Syndrome, cellmate bitches? It pisses me off to no end to think that the time I spent on base was spent to protect the likes of you.
Go fuck yourself. You signed on to protect ALL OF US. You're entitled to your opinion, but don't expect any of us to recognize it as enlightened. You got paid to do it.