Facebook Tries To Silence Lamebook: Removes Its Page, Blocks Links And Likes
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Details: I've had a website that got hit once by this, which was funny because we never even sent any email. When testing it out, it seemed to be being filtered by the ip address the link resolved to. Even if I changed the domain name I emailed, if it resolved to the same ip, it still was being marked as spam. Note that this was being tested from a 3rd party email, not by sending from our own mail server.
I do think, though, that there is an easily identifiable difference between blocking obvious spam sites, likely based on autonomous algorithms, and (I presume manually) blocking a site towards which you clearly have ulterior motives.
It is more like the guy you are sitting to next to on the subway overhearing your conversation then grabbing your tongue and forbidding you to ever speak of the topic again.
Your statement brings to mind the monopolistic phone companies that many areas have where there is no choice so them limiting your usage seriously impedes on your ability to communicate. This isn't the case with Facebook. If they don't want you to talk about Lamebook then fine, it is their service and their systems. You are free to do it over email, IM, or one of the billions of other sites that are fine with it.
Network effects matter. The privacy and censorship concerns people have about Facebook are for good reasons.
If you want to send something that is blocked by facebook send them another message instead asking for an alternative contact medium.
For those who are growing up with siblings who in highschool have Facebook accounts and no email address, it's concerning to see Facebook so easily, and for such petty reasons, censor EVEN PRIVATE communications using their site.
Am I saying they have to not censor, no. Am I saying someone should (be able to) stop them, heck no. I'm saying I've not made my peace with the idea yet. How easy would it be for COICA to pass, Facebook to be white-listed, etc, etc.
(Bless Wyden's soul that at least COICA itself is dead for now).
Yes, your younger siblings only have Facebook accounts but there is nothing stopping them from creating alternative means of communications except for a(tiny) level of effort.
It's far different from a situation with a local phone monopoly.
I don't even know the argument here anymore. Everyone accepts that Facebook should be allowed to censor whatever they want. If you are mad at the general populations acceptance of that face then that is fine but you have to accept that the great majority of people don't and won't ever care about these issues. At most they will complain for a day or two than forget about it.
Nothing on Facebook is private so saying they censor private conversations is wrong. They censor conversations using their medium.
I had to wiki COICA(not american) but I fail to see what this has to do with this discussion. Could you provide some context that I maybe missed from my wikipedia reading?
If the statement that you are making is that Facebook is hypocritical in that on the one hand they operate under a mantra of openness and on the other hand they censor, then sure, that's a problem; however, hypocrisy is a global problem that in some way is applicable to every human and every company.
Facebook could also randomly delete pictures and emails if it liked and it may be within their legal right to do so, but I'd find it odd if you just said, "If they legally can do it, I won't complain".
Or back in the day with "Miserable failure" going directly to George W. Bush's page.
These things have happened before.
your examples occurred because of link bombing.
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.
> inadvertently blocked all mentions of the phrase "lamebook" on Facebook.
Inadvertently seems to imply that this was not voluntary, more like the result of some "misclick". Is that so? Are there such powerful control tools at Facebook which use is not under strict review? If it was inadvertent, I think there ought to be serious policy revision regarding the use of these big brother tools at Facebook ;)
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?
Obviously all sites have a right to control/filter content, but I wonder if there is some law that a giant site must abide by some stricter rules of equal participation ..
Facebook is in the right here. Lamebook is clearly an attempt to cash in on the Facebook name, trademark law does not permit that, trademark law is correct here. Merely being "the little guy" doesn't make you right or give you carte blanche to ignore whatever laws you want.
Now, I think Facebook has the right to block whatever links they want to block on their own website. It's their website and they should do what they want that they feel is in their own self-interest.
Casting this as Lamebook doing something that violates Facebook's trademark is incorrect without any actual evidence that they are indeed violating Facebook's trademark.
Merely having a name that rhymes with Facebook isn't enough to call that a violation of Facebook's trademark.
I have evidence that Lamebook is violating Facebook's trademark. There's the name. There's the fact that their logo is clearly a Facebook hand, only reversed. There's the fact they're in the same basic industry and a realistic chance that Lamebook could be reasonably confused to be connected to Facebook by a normal person. I'm not sure what other evidence you're expecting, a signed affidavit from John Roberts?
The basic industry is the web? That is a stretch. Does that mean anything else is in the basic industry of "physical things"?
Facebook is in the industry of social networking, while Lamebook is a 'lolpics' site targeted at funny things FROM Facebook. It seems like they are clearly doing what Facebook says they are (attempting to piggyback on brand recognition), using satire as a hook to get away with it.
Whether they will succeed I think depends on Facebook's ability to show that this use will harm their name / confuse their customers, and that seems doubtful. In a similar instance, Toys `R' Us successfully forced Guns `R' Us to change names; the case was made that parents would think that Toys `R' Us had a chain of gun stores!
The law is not unfamiliar with your objection. In point of fact it has dealt with this question rather frequently. And no, your made up pathological case has no ground in the law, and no, I do not think the law would slice and dice Facebook and Lamebook into separate industries. Separate industries are, as the link says, things that can not possibly be confused for each other, like a tax service and a farming implement company, not "a web-based social network" and "a web site for satirizing social networks".
Taking your point to its logical conclusion, two companies always differ on some irrelevant dimension; the ability to find some trivial difference will not protect you. It's the usual thing I think we computer programmers tend to forget when arguing about law... you have to convince a judge you're not in the same industry. It's not a computer algorithm that can be gamed with a bit of pathological input and a loudly-yelled "TAKE THAT!", despite how it may sometimes appear.
Though your last paragraph entirely confuses me; you express doubt about the court case going in Facebook's favor, then cite an example that I think is actually sillier than the idea that Facebook might spin off a site or two?
The submitted article, however, quotes a law professor who explicitly portrays this as a first amendment issue which doesn’t support your hypothesis that the first amendment only applies to the government in this case. I’m relatively certain that Facebook is free to block Lamebook on their own site all they want. Freedom of speech doesn’t come into play. I’m not so sure about that when it comes to the trademark.
I think the biggest concern is that the social network effect creates a barrier to entry (it is hard to create a competing network with the same value to users as Facebook's because the value of people's existing networks outweighs the value of benefits like freer speech or a better user interface for most people).
Many governments regulate anti-competitive and monopolistic behaviour, with the aim of opening up competition in markets and allowing greater participation that way.
In this case however, Lamebook isn't really a competitor.
Not to mention, of course, the fact that Facebook is already invoking the Streisand effect by going after Lamebook at all.
Mere hours before lamebook was hacked together:
"You are probably going to be a very successful computer person. But you're going to go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you're a nerd. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won't be true. It'll be because you're an asshole."
/irony