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.
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_Gre...
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.
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.
I'm not saying that I agree with her, but this is exactly the type of language Ayn Rand hates, and frequently makes fun of in Atlas Shrugged.
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...
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?
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.
> 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...?
An example of why this filtering exists:
"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.
I can't imagine using the new FB mail for my communication if FB will censor the crap out of it.
So there is no reason to censor messages themselves.
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?
Y'know what's really lame?, expecting anyone to believe that crap ...
Come on. There are plenty of facebook hater groups (such as http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Hate-Facebook/377167999094) on facebook.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because facebook stands a good chance to lose?
// does the phrase "XXXX is a lame book" get blocked?
While I'm no fan of facebook acting petty and heavy handed - I can understand their discontent.