You can't even send private messages that have a lamebook URL. At least Facebook makes it obvious that we shouldn't trust them with private communication / Facebook Messages.
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".