Facebook Tries To Silence Lamebook: Removes Its Page, Blocks Links And Likes(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Facebook Tries To Silence Lamebook: Removes Its Page, Blocks Links And Likes
http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/facebook-blocks-lamebook/
64 comments
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.
What makes this frustrating is how few people care.
That is not exactly frustrating. Not everyone thinks of their privacy in the way people at HN do. And I have made my peace with it. Actually I see the point, why would I be so worried about facebook reading something which I would not be worried if someone overheard it while I was talking on the subway.
It has nothing to do with privacy, it has to do with Facebook censoring messages. What if you couldn't send an email with a link to a questionable site? That wouldn't bother you at all?
No-one likes spam, but I've noticed that at least some email providers do this by domain/ip address of the emailed link in order to combat spam. Maybe its different since it ends up in your spam folder, but its effectively the same result.
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.
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.
Interesting, I wasn't aware of this happening. Unless they had a setting to disable it, my initial reaction is that I'd disagree with those email providers blocking domains/IP addresses too.
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.
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.
I am guessing you didn't read the article. This isn't about privacy.
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.
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.
Actually it would be more like the owner of the subway saying that you can't speak about that topic on the subway.
No, it would be more like the owner of the phone company saying you can't speak about certain things on the phone.
Which is fine if there is alternative phone companies to use. It's their service, their right to determine what it is used for.
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.
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.
The thing is, if you don't have contact information for the person through another medium, then Facebook has a de-facto monopoly on your communication with that person. And Facebook actively prevents you from extracting contact information from Facebook in order to use in other services; you can only extract contact information for communicating through their messaging system.
Network effects matter. The privacy and censorship concerns people have about Facebook are for good reasons.
Network effects matter. The privacy and censorship concerns people have about Facebook are for good reasons.
They don't yet block the ability to trade alternative contact information.
If you want to send something that is blocked by facebook send them another message instead asking for an alternative contact medium.
If you want to send something that is blocked by facebook send them another message instead asking for an alternative contact medium.
Unfortunately, there are many people with whom my only contact is Facebook. For almost all intents and purposes, these people don't use email, much less IM.
Enjoy your ivory tower. It's going to be interesting when we're laughing at articles entitled "Facebook to rival Google" only because we were so silly as to discount them at one time. It's going to be interesting when it becomes more and and more a defacto communication tool among younger generations.
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).
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).
I think your accusation of me being in an ivory tower is more than a bit unfair. You agree with all my points after that.
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?
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?
I don't know how you don't see the problem. Facebook is censoring.
I don't see the problem. Facebook is not a government entity, and thus is not required by anyone at all to not censor.
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.
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 has very little legal obligation, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be upset and to talk about it as much as possible.
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".
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".
That is the biggest problem. Orwell's Ministry of Truth seems to be reality...
Though little consolation for their current trademark lawsuit from Facebook, this offers a huge marketing opportunity for Lamebook. Slap a gigantic "BANNED ON FACEBOOK!" stamp over the logo and play up the antagonism.
Google could certainly make their own innocent "mistake" and have Lamebook be the destintation for "I'm Feeling Lucky" for those who can't remember the url for facebook.com.
That would be a sad waste of the trust that users have built up for Google.
Google "Where you can find Chuck Norris" and press I'm Feeling Lucky...
Or back in the day with "Miserable failure" going directly to George W. Bush's page.
These things have happened before.
Or back in the day with "Miserable failure" going directly to George W. Bush's page.
These things have happened before.
scalyweb was implying that google do it intentionally.
your examples occurred because of link bombing.
your examples occurred because of link bombing.
This is Bret Taylor, CTO of Facebook.
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.
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.
Thanks for posting this explanation. I am curious about that part:
> 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 ;)
> 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 ;)
Hypothesis: Thousands of people around the world mis-flag content for a variety of reasons every day. One of the outsourced content-reviewers working for a consultancy hired by facebook made a mistake in handling the copyright infringement flag, and blocked the site. It wasn't noticed by anyone until the TechCrunch story went up.
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?
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?
If I were Lamebook I'd be registering hundreds of silly lame/facebook related domains per hour and offering them as alt urls to use via Facebook. Make the 9-figure-valuation company dance and jump for a scrappy joke site, nothing will make a mockery of them faster.
If anyone wants to do this, the code GOBBLE will get a $1 .com with godaddy, first 15k uses only.
Is that a reference to GOBBLES, by any chance?
or how about lamebook creating bit.ly urls for each post?
facebook utilizes common APIs to verify the destination url to prevent malware/phishing sites that have already been reported.
At what point does a site become "big enough" that it becomes a marketplace monopoly which is not legally permitted to discriminate?
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 ..
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 ..
Regardless of how big Facebook gets. If users continue to blindly accept the terms of use when they sign up, they will continue to agree to this type of censorship. FB is a private site that you elect to join and you accept their rules by doing so. The public at large should be outraged but nobody cares.
Enforcing one's trademark does not constitute "discrimination".
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.
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.
Parody and commenting about something and humor and so forth is protected as fair use even under our horrendously fucked up "intellectual property" system.
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.
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.
You cited defenses against copyright infringement. There is no parody exemption that I have ever heard of that applies to the active use of a trademark. You can certainly create yourself a "Lamebook" to use in, say, a web comic, and make it even look exactly like the actual Lamebook page, and nobody would blink, just like nobody blinks at a Sorny in a web comic. But you're not allowed to actually do business as Sorny!
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?
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?
There's some recognition of a parody defense in U.S. trademark law, though it isn't that clear, and I don't think there are any definitive Supreme Court cases on it. There are a number of law-review articles trying to make sense of the subject, though: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&sciodt=2000&...
>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.
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 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!
http://avvo.com/legal-answers/can-i-trademark-a-similar-name... , just to yank something out of Google very quickly.
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 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?
You could make the case that it’s a free speech issue. (Which has obviously nothing to do with whether Facebook is a monopoly or not.)
If you're making reference to the Freedom of Speech guaranteed by the US Bill of Rights, you absolutely can't. Facebook isn't the government, the First Amendment doesn't apply to them.
I’m very skeptical about that claim. It’s of course true that the first amendment and basic rights in general (usually?) only apply to the government. I know too little about US law to say with certainty whether there are exceptions in the USA. (I know with certainty that in certain, very limited circumstances some basic rights apply even between private entities in Germany.)
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.
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.
Would the Fair Use doctrine apply here, or does that not apply to trademarks?
IANAL, but they are unlikely to hit anti-discrimination laws in many countries for anything outside a narrowly defined set of prohibited criteria for discrimination.
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.
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.
You will however trip a whole host of anti-trust laws in a number of countries. Europe, in particular, is usually pretty quick on the trigger with this.
When? As soon as I start using it. :-)
One thing which mystifies me about this whole situation is that Facebook arguably benefits from Lamebook's presence. Lamebook isn't a substitute for Facebook, it's a complement to Facebook. Someone who enjoys Lamebook for its humor will probably try extra-hard to find entertaining scenarios among their own Facebook friends, meaning that Lamebook increases Facebook's usage. Why you'd want to shut down a company that gives you more traffic (and therefore revenue) for a relatively unimportant and legally dubious reason is beyond me.
Not to mention, of course, the fact that Facebook is already invoking the Streisand effect by going after Lamebook at all.
Not to mention, of course, the fact that Facebook is already invoking the Streisand effect by going after Lamebook at all.
I can only guess someone at facebook thinks it's not good if their brand get associated with lameness.
Good job Facebook. I had never heard of Lamebook before... today.
C'mon guys, everybody knows it's wrong to take a bunch of info and photos from one facebook site and re-purpose them on another.
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
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
Why is Facebook getting distracted with this? Facebook has so much going for itself, why censor a 2 men company and cause all the negative PR?
They have turned over the company to business people and lawyers.
Even if they hadn't, they did the right thing here. Note that Lamebook struck with the lawsuit first. It would've been easy enough to ignore Lamebook and just go after bigger trademark infringers on a case by case basis, but since Lamebook struck first, they actually had to strike back, because if they allowed that lawsuit to declare that Lamebook doesn't infringe on the Facebook trademark, there would be 200 <something>-book sites tomorrow created by copycats, and Facebook would be powerless against any of them because of the Lamebook judgment.
This is very unsettling. BUT, I was able to share the TC article about lamebook on my wall. As long as there is still someway to voice dissent, even if it is through a thirdparty site.
They did the same with my profile too. I wrote something relating to frastu-facebook user and they disabled my account.