4 ms·

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),

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?
- Zak 16y ago
  Probably so they can obliterate mentions of spam domains. HN has a similar feature, except that one can also stealth-ban your account for posting links to certain sites. Until we get strong AI, any high-traffic site where users can post links will need such a feature.
  - chesser 16y ago
    It's one thing to nuke links, but this apparently went beyond that. From the TC comments: "Wow, you can't type ANY form of lamebook.com, lamebook DOT com, lame+book DOT com...NOTHING! How can I trust Facebook as a messaging system if it's going to block entire words and phrases?!? What if I just wanted to ask my friends what they think about the Lamebook case?? WTF" This would be like if I asked you for examples of which sites were banned, and you couldn't even post to tell me.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- RickHull 16y ago
  > why do you have a feature on your site that can obliterate mentions of a certain phrase? It's called database access, and every CTO has it, ultimately. That said, I doubt there is a big red button sitting like a blank check for the CTO to nuke phrases that contract his sphincter. That said, what the hell do I know?
  - citricsquid 16y ago
    This feature "filters" comments as they're made, it's most definitely something that was built as a feature he even says as much, it's not "database access", it's a built in feature for filtering (censoring) bad content. It doesn't remove old mentions, it disallows future mentions.
  - iamjustlooking 16y ago
    I love that you can imagine the CTO running through the database blocking all mentions of lamebook in real time.
moultano 16y ago
This ought to be everyone's prior when something like this happens. Bugs are common, censorship is not, particularly for tech companies.
eddieplan9 16y ago
"The rumors of my censorship have been greatly exaggerated!" Come on. There are plenty of facebook hater groups (such as http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Hate-Facebook/377167999094 http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Hate-Facebook/377167999094) on facebook.
bullseye 16y ago
According to the article, in addition to blocking links, the company's fan page was also removed. Is this also part of the phrase blocking routine? (This is a genuine question and not an antagonistic attempt.)
bambax 16y ago
If the TechCrunch article is to be believed, Facebook gives itself the power to filter and block outbound private emails between users based on its content. > Not only is it currently impossible to share a Lamebook link to your News Feed or a friend’s Facebook Wall — you can’t even include them as part of a direct message or email to friends I'm not on Facebook so I don't really know; if I'm wrong about this then I'm sorry. But if it's true, it's crazy. Private communication between people that the system knows 1) are human (as opposed to an automatic spamming engine) 2) mutually declared themselves to be "friends" should not be monitored in any way. If the recipient wants to set up a filter then it's fine, but if messages are blocked at the source then it's very disturbing. Everyone used to assume that Big Brother nightmares were imaginary and overblown; now that Facebook is becoming the main communication channel between some people, those nightmares are real...?
- arice 16y ago
  Not every computer is guaranteed to be free of malicious software capable of acting on behalf of the individual. This necessitates that security filters operate on private communications. This is true for all messaging products. An example of why this filtering exists: http://blog.trendmicro.com/koobface-makes-a-comeback/ http://blog.trendmicro.com/koobface-makes-a-comeback/
paulnelligan 16y ago
an oversight by facebook ?, really ?, a mistake ? ... so you just decided for the hell of it to ban all links to <random url> and <random url> just happened to be lamebook!!!, what an unreal coincidence. Y'know what's really lame?, expecting anyone to believe that crap ...

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?

Zak 16y ago
Probably so they can obliterate mentions of spam domains. HN has a similar feature, except that one can also stealth-ban your account for posting links to certain sites. Until we get strong AI, any high-traffic site where users can post links will need such a feature.
- chesser 16y ago
  It's one thing to nuke links, but this apparently went beyond that. From the TC comments: "Wow, you can't type ANY form of lamebook.com, lamebook DOT com, lame+book DOT com...NOTHING! How can I trust Facebook as a messaging system if it's going to block entire words and phrases?!? What if I just wanted to ask my friends what they think about the Lamebook case?? WTF" This would be like if I asked you for examples of which sites were banned, and you couldn't even post to tell me.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
RickHull 16y ago
> why do you have a feature on your site that can obliterate mentions of a certain phrase? It's called database access, and every CTO has it, ultimately. That said, I doubt there is a big red button sitting like a blank check for the CTO to nuke phrases that contract his sphincter. That said, what the hell do I know?
- citricsquid 16y ago
  This feature "filters" comments as they're made, it's most definitely something that was built as a feature he even says as much, it's not "database access", it's a built in feature for filtering (censoring) bad content. It doesn't remove old mentions, it disallows future mentions.
- iamjustlooking 16y ago
  I love that you can imagine the CTO running through the database blocking all mentions of lamebook in real time.

moultano 16y ago

This ought to be everyone's prior when something like this happens. Bugs are common, censorship is not, particularly for tech companies.

eddieplan9 16y ago

"The rumors of my censorship have been greatly exaggerated!" Come on. There are plenty of facebook hater groups (such as http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Hate-Facebook/377167999094 http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Hate-Facebook/377167999094) on facebook.

bullseye 16y ago

According to the article, in addition to blocking links, the company's fan page was also removed. Is this also part of the phrase blocking routine? (This is a genuine question and not an antagonistic attempt.)

bambax 16y ago

If the TechCrunch article is to be believed, Facebook gives itself the power to filter and block outbound private emails between users based on its content. > Not only is it currently impossible to share a Lamebook link to your News Feed or a friend’s Facebook Wall — you can’t even include them as part of a direct message or email to friends I'm not on Facebook so I don't really know; if I'm wrong about this then I'm sorry. But if it's true, it's crazy. Private communication between people that the system knows 1) are human (as opposed to an automatic spamming engine) 2) mutually declared themselves to be "friends" should not be monitored in any way. If the recipient wants to set up a filter then it's fine, but if messages are blocked at the source then it's very disturbing. Everyone used to assume that Big Brother nightmares were imaginary and overblown; now that Facebook is becoming the main communication channel between some people, those nightmares are real...?

arice 16y ago
Not every computer is guaranteed to be free of malicious software capable of acting on behalf of the individual. This necessitates that security filters operate on private communications. This is true for all messaging products. An example of why this filtering exists: http://blog.trendmicro.com/koobface-makes-a-comeback/ http://blog.trendmicro.com/koobface-makes-a-comeback/

paulnelligan 16y ago

an oversight by facebook ?, really ?, a mistake ? ... so you just decided for the hell of it to ban all links to <random url> and <random url> just happened to be lamebook!!!, what an unreal coincidence. Y'know what's really lame?, expecting anyone to believe that crap ...