
Make Facebook Angry, And They’ll Censor You Into Oblivion - cristinacordova
http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/facebook-censorship/
======
thinkcomp
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-
co...](http://venturebeat.com/2010/08/26/facebook-working-with-y-combinator-
to-support-social-startups/.))

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
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
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
Nah course not, you just want someone else to get in one.

~~~
panacea
Simmer down gentleman. This really isn't the place for "flame-on".

------
finiteloop
This is Bret Taylor, CTO of Facebook. I responded on the other thread
(<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.

~~~
iamjustlooking
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?

~~~
finiteloop
We use it to block spam and malware, typically to block mentions of URLs that
are, e.g, links to malware downloads.

~~~
jokermatt999
You use it to block spam and malware, yes. But you've just shown that you use
it for other purposes as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there also
an issue with The Pirate Bay on this too? That's neither spam nor malware (not
that I'm defending what it is...), so it seems odd to act like this is just
for protecting users.

------
gojomo
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>

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
Happy to see Bret Taylor's statement above
(<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.

------
cookiecaper
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.

------
sp4rki
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.

------
alanh
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
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.

------
gcheong
"We’re disappointed that after months of working with Lamebook they turned to
litigation."

Because facebook stands a good chance to lose?

------
wwortiz
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
Newsflash: FB is already the next AOL. :) We are helping Zuck and company
build those Walled Garden walls.

------
protomyth
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?

------
solson
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.

------
andreyf
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 ;)

------
underdown
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.

