8 ms·

Make Facebook Angry, And They’ll Censor You Into Oblivion

gcheong 16y ago
"We’re disappointed that after months of working with Lamebook they turned to litigation." Because facebook stands a good chance to lose?
sp4rki 16y ago
This is a good thing as it will make more people aware of what Facebook is becoming. The value Facebook provides is no longer higher than the cost (in privacy, liberty to express yourself, and of possibility of targeted disruption of service) of using the platform. I hope something better takes them out. Soon.
protomyth 16y ago
I do wonder about filters like these on the upcoming messaging. Will there be a point where the blockage hits the non-tech savvy in a way that ends up on the news? // does the phrase "XXXX is a lame book" get blocked?
thinkcomp 16y ago
I've earned a lot of ill-will on Hacker News by stating the obvious. The kind of behavior described in this article bothers me for several reasons, and I've posted plenty already about most of them, but one that doesn't get talked about enough is that Y Combinator and Facebook are in business together now. (See http://venturebeat.com/2010/08/26/facebook-working-with-y-combinator-to-support-social-startups/. http://venturebeat.com/2010/08/26/facebook-working-with-y-co...) Facebook, Inc. has in the past taken, and appears to still be taking, a number of actions designed to crush entrepreneurship. I would think that Y Combinator would do anything but support such radical and destructive behavior. My note to Paul Graham expressing this sentiment several months ago remains unanswered.
- grovulent 16y ago
  Not sure why you'd want to draw PG into a political shit fight... Besides - wouldn't a more hacker thing to do be to fund the folks (or be the folks) that build the next take down? All empires fall - the cool thing about modern times is that they seem to fall faster and faster...
  - thinkcomp 16y ago
    I'm not looking for a fight. I'm looking for an explanation. The odds of success as an entrepreneur are low enough without influential investors implicitly blessing those who are notorious for their unique interpretations of right and wrong.
    - grovulent 16y ago
      Nah course not, you just want someone else to get in one.
      - panacea 16y ago
        Simmer down gentleman. This really isn't the place for "flame-on".
  - lhnz 16y ago
    He is responsible for YC. Who else would you mention by name when arguing this point?
  - samtp 16y ago
    Its not a 'political shit fight'. There are some consequences to being a startup incubator, and partnering with a company that has a record of using outside innovations for its own benefit.
    - grovulent 16y ago
      Yeah - I reject that. I don't agree with facebook's approach. So I don't use it. But this isn't black or white stuff... this is grey area that lots of people have different opinions about. By all means critique facebook - by all means critique those who have partnered with facebook. But demanding that someone else must come in on the fight on your side or your going to denounce them publicly on their site, is a pretty horrible - either your with us, or your against us - sort of mentality. As far as I'm aware, YC itself is not funding any companies with similar sorts of ethic breaches. So why not take the fight to where it needs to be fought?
- drusenko 16y ago
  YC has "partnered" with Facebook only as much as it benefits YC companies tremendously to have inside access and help from the largest and most dominant social network. Partnering with them can hardly be construed as an endorsement of everything Facebook does. Also, it's only fair to disclose that you have a very public history with Facebook and would have plenty of reasons to lobby this criticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Aaron_Greenspan_and_houseSYSTEM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Aaron_Gre...
  - thinkcomp 16y ago
    First, every time I make such a disclaimer about something that you're saying is already "very public" I'm criticized for not being quiet about my prior involvement, but if you think that needed to be clarified, that's fine. Either way, in this case my role is completely immaterial. I said that I've written about this topic in the past, so anyone can click on my username and see. My real name is clearly in my profile for anyone to look up. Yours isn't, and I don't see it on your web site, either. And as the CEO of a Y Combinator-backed company, you might want to disclose that you are the beneficiary of the inside access you reference. Second, call me crazy, but it's an official partnership from what has been reported, not a "partnership." Third, partnership is an endorsement, plain and simple. You don't partner with people you don't support; you partner with ones you do.
    - lisper 16y ago
      > partnership is an endorsement Word.
    - gojomo 16y ago
      partnership is an endorsement, plain and simple Not at all. I'll continue the Facebook ⟺ Communist China comparison of my other comment – which ought to demonstrate I'm not coming at this issue with total sympathy for Facebook. A policy of engagement means only, "we're pragmatic enough to work together on matters of common benefit", not "we endorse everything about our partner". A lot of positive-sum interactions would be lost, and society would be a lot less civil, if we had to shun partnering with anyone we weren't ready to 'endorse'. That's the mindset of a crusader rather than a businessperson.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
gojomo 16y ago
In China, young people get around censorship filters with euphemisms, and especially rhyming-euphemisms. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_crab_%28internet_slang%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_crab_%28internet_slang%29 So looking on the bright side, kids will find ways to talk. On the not-so-bright-side, Facebook is behaving like the Communist Party of China.
- gojomo 16y ago
  Happy to see Bret Taylor's statement above (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1932272 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1932272) and elsewhere that topic-filtering was applied by mistake, and would be inconsistent with Facebook's commitment to free expression. Facebook has a relationship to its community/system that is much like that of a sovereign government to its jurisdiction, so even Facebook's transitory slip-ups can make it seem like an overbearing or bumbling state.
andreyf 16y ago
Startup idea: let Jason Kincaid submit this story to Facebook with the stipulation that it gets published if they don't fix it in the next 3 days, and they pay him $10k for pointing out what idiots they were if they do. The precise monetary sum should be the value of the negative publicity. The details of a market structure to accomplish this goal is left as an exercise for the reader ;)
wwortiz 16y ago
I for one hope this walled garden idea of social networking sites doesn't come out on top. Maybe facebook will become the next AOL.
- KE4ZNR 16y ago
  Newsflash: FB is already the next AOL. :) We are helping Zuck and company build those Walled Garden walls.
alanh 16y ago
Lots of people are pointing out that it’s their site [Facebook], they can do what they want. True. But then they can’t pretend they are neutral enough to be “the” social graph or “the” messaging platform. [Edit in response:] Agreed, it’s absolutely up for users and third-party developers / webmasters to decide. “The internet considers censorship damage and routes around it,” or however that goes.
- sukuriant 16y ago
  To be fair, isn't that for the users of the platform to decide? What becomes the defacto method or medium is largely based on who and how many use it.
solson 16y ago
I noticed this effect earlier this year when Facebook was facing scrutiny over privacy. I posted a few negative links and criticized facebook and it appeared that far fewer people saw anything I posted afterward. Pure anecdote, but it looked suspicious. Facebook controls what pops up in your friends feeds.
cookiecaper 16y ago
Pretty ridiculous and ballsy of Facebook, I think. Zuckerberg must be drunk with power to allow this kind of thing, with delusions that his burgeoning empire is invincible. He is practically daring someone to prove that Facebook can be taken out of its place by this kind of behavior. How blatant can you be that you have no regard for the public perception, no regard for those who depend on your platform for a means of communication, no regard for those who use your platform to deploy their own applications? I think that literally removing all content _just because_ you don't like someone is about as blatant and power-drunk as you can get. I don't think anyone believes that the trademark litigation has any merit. They're just using it as an excuse because they think that Lamebook reflects poorly on their business, though I don't really see how ... I think it probably encourages people to use it more, in hopes that they'll find something Lamebook-worthy.
finiteloop 16y ago
This is Bret Taylor, CTO of Facebook. I responded on the other thread (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1932259 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1932259), but cross-posting here since it is largely about the same issue. This was a mistake on our part. In the process of dealing with a routine trademark violation issue regarding some links posted to Facebook, we inadvertently blocked all mentions of the phrase "lamebook" on Facebook. We are committed to promoting free expression on Facebook. We apologize for our mistake in this case, and we are working to fix the process that led to this happening.
- phlux 16y ago
  Bret, That is really nice to hear. What is the stance, then, on said 'free expression on Facebook' regarding the filtering of mentions of torrents in the FB Messaging platform? Is this protected expression? Or will the FB Messaging platform filter content based on an automated perceived risk of copyright violation etc? Is the official policy regarding free expression, and what constitutes free expression, that one (without a Facebook account) may read posted anywhere easily accessible?
- brlewis 16y ago
  That's great to hear, Bret. A lot of us are wary of FB because of stories like this. A followup about the fix to the process that led to this happening would be much appreciated.
  - cypherpunks01 16y ago
    That would be really nice and open of them - but for your own sake please don't hold your breath :)
- iamjustlooking 16y ago
  If you are committed to promoting free expression why do you have a feature on your site that can obliterate mentions of a certain phrase? Would you have noticed that you "inadvertently" blocked all mentions of lamebook if there wasn't any publicity about this blocking?
underdown 16y ago
Lets be honest... lamebook does look confusingly similar to Facebook - the likely source of trademark violation allegations. While I'm no fan of facebook acting petty and heavy handed - I can understand their discontent.

"We’re disappointed that after months of working with Lamebook they turned to litigation." Because facebook stands a good chance to lose?

sp4rki 16y ago

This is a good thing as it will make more people aware of what Facebook is becoming. The value Facebook provides is no longer higher than the cost (in privacy, liberty to express yourself, and of possibility of targeted disruption of service) of using the platform. I hope something better takes them out. Soon.

protomyth 16y ago

I do wonder about filters like these on the upcoming messaging. Will there be a point where the blockage hits the non-tech savvy in a way that ends up on the news? // does the phrase "XXXX is a lame book" get blocked?

thinkcomp 16y ago

I've earned a lot of ill-will on Hacker News by stating the obvious. The kind of behavior described in this article bothers me for several reasons, and I've posted plenty already about most of them, but one that doesn't get talked about enough is that Y Combinator and Facebook are in business together now. (See http://venturebeat.com/2010/08/26/facebook-working-with-y-combinator-to-support-social-startups/. http://venturebeat.com/2010/08/26/facebook-working-with-y-co...) Facebook, Inc. has in the past taken, and appears to still be taking, a number of actions designed to crush entrepreneurship. I would think that Y Combinator would do anything but support such radical and destructive behavior. My note to Paul Graham expressing this sentiment several months ago remains unanswered.

grovulent 16y ago
Not sure why you'd want to draw PG into a political shit fight... Besides - wouldn't a more hacker thing to do be to fund the folks (or be the folks) that build the next take down? All empires fall - the cool thing about modern times is that they seem to fall faster and faster...
- thinkcomp 16y ago
  I'm not looking for a fight. I'm looking for an explanation. The odds of success as an entrepreneur are low enough without influential investors implicitly blessing those who are notorious for their unique interpretations of right and wrong.
  - grovulent 16y ago
    Nah course not, you just want someone else to get in one.
    - panacea 16y ago
      Simmer down gentleman. This really isn't the place for "flame-on".
- lhnz 16y ago
  He is responsible for YC. Who else would you mention by name when arguing this point?
- samtp 16y ago
  Its not a 'political shit fight'. There are some consequences to being a startup incubator, and partnering with a company that has a record of using outside innovations for its own benefit.
  - grovulent 16y ago
    Yeah - I reject that. I don't agree with facebook's approach. So I don't use it. But this isn't black or white stuff... this is grey area that lots of people have different opinions about. By all means critique facebook - by all means critique those who have partnered with facebook. But demanding that someone else must come in on the fight on your side or your going to denounce them publicly on their site, is a pretty horrible - either your with us, or your against us - sort of mentality. As far as I'm aware, YC itself is not funding any companies with similar sorts of ethic breaches. So why not take the fight to where it needs to be fought?
drusenko 16y ago
YC has "partnered" with Facebook only as much as it benefits YC companies tremendously to have inside access and help from the largest and most dominant social network. Partnering with them can hardly be construed as an endorsement of everything Facebook does. Also, it's only fair to disclose that you have a very public history with Facebook and would have plenty of reasons to lobby this criticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Aaron_Greenspan_and_houseSYSTEM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Aaron_Gre...
- thinkcomp 16y ago
  First, every time I make such a disclaimer about something that you're saying is already "very public" I'm criticized for not being quiet about my prior involvement, but if you think that needed to be clarified, that's fine. Either way, in this case my role is completely immaterial. I said that I've written about this topic in the past, so anyone can click on my username and see. My real name is clearly in my profile for anyone to look up. Yours isn't, and I don't see it on your web site, either. And as the CEO of a Y Combinator-backed company, you might want to disclose that you are the beneficiary of the inside access you reference. Second, call me crazy, but it's an official partnership from what has been reported, not a "partnership." Third, partnership is an endorsement, plain and simple. You don't partner with people you don't support; you partner with ones you do.
  - lisper 16y ago
    > partnership is an endorsement Word.
  - gojomo 16y ago
    partnership is an endorsement, plain and simple Not at all. I'll continue the Facebook ⟺ Communist China comparison of my other comment – which ought to demonstrate I'm not coming at this issue with total sympathy for Facebook. A policy of engagement means only, "we're pragmatic enough to work together on matters of common benefit", not "we endorse everything about our partner". A lot of positive-sum interactions would be lost, and society would be a lot less civil, if we had to shun partnering with anyone we weren't ready to 'endorse'. That's the mindset of a crusader rather than a businessperson.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

gojomo 16y ago

In China, young people get around censorship filters with euphemisms, and especially rhyming-euphemisms. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_crab_%28internet_slang%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_crab_%28internet_slang%29 So looking on the bright side, kids will find ways to talk. On the not-so-bright-side, Facebook is behaving like the Communist Party of China.

gojomo 16y ago
Happy to see Bret Taylor's statement above (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1932272 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1932272) and elsewhere that topic-filtering was applied by mistake, and would be inconsistent with Facebook's commitment to free expression. Facebook has a relationship to its community/system that is much like that of a sovereign government to its jurisdiction, so even Facebook's transitory slip-ups can make it seem like an overbearing or bumbling state.

andreyf 16y ago

Startup idea: let Jason Kincaid submit this story to Facebook with the stipulation that it gets published if they don't fix it in the next 3 days, and they pay him $10k for pointing out what idiots they were if they do. The precise monetary sum should be the value of the negative publicity. The details of a market structure to accomplish this goal is left as an exercise for the reader ;)

wwortiz 16y ago

I for one hope this walled garden idea of social networking sites doesn't come out on top. Maybe facebook will become the next AOL.

KE4ZNR 16y ago
Newsflash: FB is already the next AOL. :) We are helping Zuck and company build those Walled Garden walls.

alanh 16y ago

Lots of people are pointing out that it’s their site [Facebook], they can do what they want. True. But then they can’t pretend they are neutral enough to be “the” social graph or “the” messaging platform. [Edit in response:] Agreed, it’s absolutely up for users and third-party developers / webmasters to decide. “The internet considers censorship damage and routes around it,” or however that goes.

sukuriant 16y ago
To be fair, isn't that for the users of the platform to decide? What becomes the defacto method or medium is largely based on who and how many use it.

solson 16y ago

I noticed this effect earlier this year when Facebook was facing scrutiny over privacy. I posted a few negative links and criticized facebook and it appeared that far fewer people saw anything I posted afterward. Pure anecdote, but it looked suspicious. Facebook controls what pops up in your friends feeds.

cookiecaper 16y ago

Pretty ridiculous and ballsy of Facebook, I think. Zuckerberg must be drunk with power to allow this kind of thing, with delusions that his burgeoning empire is invincible. He is practically daring someone to prove that Facebook can be taken out of its place by this kind of behavior. How blatant can you be that you have no regard for the public perception, no regard for those who depend on your platform for a means of communication, no regard for those who use your platform to deploy their own applications? I think that literally removing all content _just because_ you don't like someone is about as blatant and power-drunk as you can get. I don't think anyone believes that the trademark litigation has any merit. They're just using it as an excuse because they think that Lamebook reflects poorly on their business, though I don't really see how ... I think it probably encourages people to use it more, in hopes that they'll find something Lamebook-worthy.

finiteloop 16y ago

This is Bret Taylor, CTO of Facebook. I responded on the other thread (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1932259 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1932259), but cross-posting here since it is largely about the same issue. This was a mistake on our part. In the process of dealing with a routine trademark violation issue regarding some links posted to Facebook, we inadvertently blocked all mentions of the phrase "lamebook" on Facebook. We are committed to promoting free expression on Facebook. We apologize for our mistake in this case, and we are working to fix the process that led to this happening.

phlux 16y ago
Bret, That is really nice to hear. What is the stance, then, on said 'free expression on Facebook' regarding the filtering of mentions of torrents in the FB Messaging platform? Is this protected expression? Or will the FB Messaging platform filter content based on an automated perceived risk of copyright violation etc? Is the official policy regarding free expression, and what constitutes free expression, that one (without a Facebook account) may read posted anywhere easily accessible?
brlewis 16y ago
That's great to hear, Bret. A lot of us are wary of FB because of stories like this. A followup about the fix to the process that led to this happening would be much appreciated.
- cypherpunks01 16y ago
  That would be really nice and open of them - but for your own sake please don't hold your breath :)
iamjustlooking 16y ago
If you are committed to promoting free expression why do you have a feature on your site that can obliterate mentions of a certain phrase? Would you have noticed that you "inadvertently" blocked all mentions of lamebook if there wasn't any publicity about this blocking?

underdown 16y ago

Lets be honest... lamebook does look confusingly similar to Facebook - the likely source of trademark violation allegations. While I'm no fan of facebook acting petty and heavy handed - I can understand their discontent.