Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft IM Blocking YouTube Links

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the walled-playground dept.

Censorship 364

A number of readers are sending word that the blogosphere and Twittersphere are alight with reports of Microsoft's new block on messages containing YouTube URLs. Both MSN Messenger and Windows Live Messenger reportedly implement the block. One blogger sniffed the network to discover that such messages receive a NAK from Microsoft's servers. Microsoft has been blocking messages by keyword, as an anti-phishing measure, for some time, but *.youtube.com would not seem to provoke much worry about phishing. Instead, as B.E.T.A Daily speculates, "This block seems to be related to the recent launch of Messenger TV in 20 countries which allows for sharing video clips from MSN Video on Messenger." Hard to get away with in an arena where you don't enjoy a monopoly.

cancel ×

364 comments

First (2, Interesting)

Joe Jay Bee (1151309) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361790)

Well, this is clearly designed to prevent Rickrolls.

In all seriousness, I've been sending YouTube links around (and receiving them) just fine. Dunno where the problem is.

Of course, if bloggers and Twitter users say it, it MUST be true.

Re:First (4, Funny)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361820)

Well, this is clearly designed to prevent Rickrolls.

Well then gosh, we'd better block YouTube links everywhere. After all, won't someone think of the children? They could be scarred for life. :-)

Re:First (5, Informative)

Roadstar (909257) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361924)

In all seriousness, I've been sending YouTube links around (and receiving them) just fine. Dunno where the problem is.

Well, I tried both Adium and the official Messenger for Mac, and YouTube links got blocked on both of them.

Re:First (1)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362010)

Same on Trillian... dunno what this guy is talking about, or when the last time he tried was

Re:First (2, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362176)

One could always hope that would be enough to move people back to ICQ/AIM, not likely thought, sad enough.

But wait, there's more! (5, Interesting)

justthinkit (954982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362178)

People with email@msn.com addresses never receive YahooGroups.com invites. I get them bounced back to me routinely.

This IM blocking is just another reason to boycott msn.com, hotmail.com & live.com.

[Of course, YahooGroups now adds spaces in URLs I try to send to my groups. I have to TinyURL everything these days.]

Re:First (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23361944)

Three MS bashing articles in a row!
Free MS bashing on S(low)un(ews)day!

Re:First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23362146)

Three MS bashing articles in a row!
Free MS bashing on S(low)un(ews)day!


Feel free to go somewhere else. Here: I'll even help get you started [google.com]

Re:First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23361990)

A friend of mine tried to send me a youtube link yesterday. It didn't come through, though she got an error about it not being delievered. I told her to randomly insert spaces into the URL. Then it worked.

Re:First (1)

RinzeWind (413873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362266)

I tried this myself a few minutes ago and it failed.

But if a commenter on Slashdot says it's false, it MUST be false.

Needs to be tagged... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23361828)

andnothingofvaluewaslost

I think somone at Microsoft... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23361832)

...is just sick of being Rick Rolled [youtube.com]

I call BS (-1, Troll)

Vampyre_Dark (630787) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361850)

Me and contacts usually trade youtube links all night. In fact, I sometimes get no work done because we spent a few hours checking out youtube clips. This block must have been implemented in the last 15 minutes otherwise.

Re:I call BS (4, Informative)

stg (43177) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361958)

That is very easy to test. I tested it yesterday with a friend and also today and in both cases the url send failed.

If I remove the http and www it works, it also works if I change the youtube domain name...

Re:I call BS (4, Funny)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362194)

Wow, a URL block fails to catch it if you change the URL's domain name? What happens if you change the TLD? Jesus christ, someone alert... the someone in charge of this madness! It must be stopped!

They are also blocking mediafire.com links (1)

Vu1turEMaN (1270774) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362214)

I tried to send someone a mediafire download link the other day, and it was blocked every time i tried to send it to them. I had to tinyurl it just to get them the link, which is a PITA. This is total nonsense >.

Re:I call BS (4, Informative)

ShinSugoi (783392) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361960)

Just tried it. They are indeed blocking Youtube links; You'll get an error immediately if you try to send someone a message including a URL with youtube.com in it.

Re:I call BS (4, Informative)

Vampyre_Dark (630787) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361992)

Mod me down. They literally must have implemented it in the last 15 minutes, because as of right now, they are blocked, but weren't (for me) right before the I posted the first time.

Re:I call BS (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23362094)

Your bosses read:

"In fact, I sometimes get no work done because we spent a few hours checking out youtube clips"

and decided to act.

Now get back to work.

Re:I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23362228)

It's Saturday.

Re:I call BS (2, Informative)

Doppleganger (66109) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362014)

I just tested with a friend, the same youtube URL failed to go through twice (and not a rickroll or anything, just a cat on a treadmill). Went through fine on yahoo chat, though. And she just tried sending one back, getting a message that it couldn't be delivered.

Re:I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23362110)

Pidgin chat log below. Ask someone to translate it for you (it's in Swedish). This was last night:

(12:19:30) Hanna: Men va fan
(12:19:49) Jan: Hm?
(12:19:50) Hanna: "Det gick inte att leverera fÃljande meddelande till alla mottagare:"
(12:20:13) Hanna: Jag fÃrsÃker skicka en YouTube lÃnk till lÃ¥ten/musikvideon
(12:20:19) Jan: Erhm?
(12:20:29) Hanna: Men det går inte
(12:20:43) Jan: Ta och slÃng in nÃ¥gra mellanslag.
(12:21:09) Hanna: www. youtube. com/ watch?v=cV6xBQDCTzg

Let me sum it up for those of you who can't/won't find a translator:
She: Wtf? I can't send you a youtube link
Me: Try inserting some spaces into it. ..and the link came through.

The problem was there. However, if the youtube-block was on purpose, I very much doubt it was made by someone important at Microsoft.

They are evil control-freaks, but they aren't stupid. .. well, most of the time.

Its not censorship (1, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361854)

When its a private company ...

Oh but we have to sound sensational to get attention, don't we?

Re:Its not censorship (4, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361912)

The definition of censorship doesn't depend on who is doing it.

Re:Its not censorship (3, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362284)

Yes, but you are incapable of censoring me, whereas the government is capable of censoring me.

See, preventing me from using your resources to spread my message isn't censorship, because you aren't preventing me from spreading my message, you are preventing me from using your resources, which you have every right to do.

Re:Its not censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23361950)

When its a private company ...
You're being sarcastic, aren't you? Well, I sure hope so, at least, since your post would be pretty stupid otherwise.

True, however... (4, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362082)

The article didn't claim it was censorship. It made the (purely factual) claim that links to youtube were being blocked by msn messenger. Which they are.

Sounds like you're the sensationalist one out for attention.

Re:True, however... (0)

nacturation (646836) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362286)

The article didn't claim it was censorship.

Sounds like you're the sensationalist one out for attention.
Scroll to the top of the page. Notice the image of that guy with the black bar over his mouth which, if you mouseover it, has an ALT tag of "Censorship"? This was marked as being in the Censorship category, likely what the GP was referring to.

Naturally you'll now retract your accusation that the GP was seeking attention and perhaps draw less attention to yourself in the future.
 

Re:True, however... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362290)

No, but the slashdot tag icons did.

Re:Its not censorship (2, Interesting)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362106)

I agree entirely, and to take it a bit further..

This isn't only not censorship, it's not even evil. It's simply stupid.

When i think of the number of users who are consistently pasting youtube urls to each other...and then think of the number of users who would actually bother using the microsoft video service, i fail to see how there could possibly be a gain in this beyond drastically reducing the number of MSN and Windows Live messenger users in the end overall.

Maybe they just want to get rid of the hippies and only keep the userbase of controllable wallets? Beyond something bizarre like that, i fail to see the advantage in the end.

Re:Its not censorship (3, Insightful)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362136)

Does this mean that when I make a call with my cell phone, Verizon can bleep me out if I mention a competitive service? If a company makes a communication medium available to me, and I use it, I expect that the provider of that service will not interfere with my communication unless I very specifically abuse the system or break the law.

Re:Its not censorship (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362292)

Yes, they can. But you can also choose to move to another service.

Re:Its not censorship (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362144)

No - this isn't government censorship. See entities and people other than governments can censor.

Re:Its not censorship (1)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362182)

Yes, it is.
Just because there isn't a clause in the constitution dealing with non-governmental censorship doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Re:Its not censorship (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362218)

Oh but we have to sound sensational to get attention, don't we?

Seeing as how it doesn't actually call it censorship, I'd say *you're* the one doing exactly that.

Re:Its not censorship (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362302)

I clearly see the censorship tag on the story. You know, the guy with a black line across his mouth.

So no, i'm not the one doing that.

Re:Its not censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23362254)

We've been through this: kdawson is a trolling fucktard. [slashdot.org]

Re:Its not censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23362368)

Yeah, it's anti-competitive behavior.

Evils of Outsourcing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23361864)

This is the direct result of Microsoft outsourcing its network administration to the government of Pakistan.

When will the madness end?!?1!!

Rickrolls (3, Interesting)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361870)

This is deeper than Rickrolls, folks. Microsoft has absolutely no reason to block an entire website because of such a phenomenon. However, there's not much of a way of getting around it other than using a URL shortening service or complaining like mad to MSN.

It's reasons such as this that make me prefer AIM/ICQ and Jabber.

Re:Rickrolls (1)

quanticle (843097) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362066)

Well, as far as AIM/ICQ goes, AOL controls all the servers for that protocol, so you're no better off than with MSN. AOL could choose to block all YouTube links tomorrow and you'd be just as out of luck on AIM/ICQ.

Re:Rickrolls (1)

hclewk (1248568) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362168)

If AIM/ICQ actually did block YouTube links, then you would have a valid point. BUT THEY DONT!

You can't just say that you are SOL because some company could do something.

Re:Rickrolls (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362076)

Well, yes young man, there is a reason for MS to block an entire website. We should remember the chair throwing that must have taken place when Google sort of White-knighted Yahoo recently. I'm reasonably sure that there are *SOME* MS employees who did not appreciate it.

Of course, it could also (put your hat on) be someone related to Yahoo! who decided to make MS look bad? Not sure how, but it's the other side of the conspiracy coin.

It's hardly good business to do this on purpose, and if it's an accident... Well, now why would you have any reason to build faith in MS?

Re:Rickrolls (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362274)

What would be cool would be if all MSN-compatible clients except Microsofts rewrote all youtubelinks to something like http://www.messengersuckuseabetternetworksuchasicqaimorjabber.com/vatch.php?id= [messengers...jabber.com] ... which then forwarded you to the correct video. Working links and you informed them. But then Microsoft would block that url to .. ;D

FUD (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23361874)

FUD

This should surprise no one (5, Insightful)

Presence2 (240785) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361876)

It's Microsoft. "What can we get away with today?" Enough said.

Re:This should surprise no one (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362306)

"You couldn't go there you wanted today!"

"Where shall we take you today?"

Or maybe the best one: "Where do we want you to go today?"

This seems rather foolish (5, Insightful)

AmonEzhno (1276076) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361886)

Refusing to carry the links of one of THE most popular web pages on whole internet seems like a poor business decision. If you can't share the links you want then many people are just going to switch.
I mean who doesn't share youtube videos over IM?
Sorry but this just seems ridiculous

Re:This seems rather foolish (2, Insightful)

heatdeath (217147) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362278)

The only thing they use blocking for is viruses or other malware prevention. It's a poor system, granted, but they still only use it for that.

I'm sure what happened was there was a virus reported that was using youtube profiles or video comments to spread, and somebody not very high up made a poor decision to just block everything from the domain.

I'm also sure as soon as people higher up figure out what happened, it will get removed. =P

Just use a different IM client... (2, Insightful)

ZlatanZ++ (978060) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361888)

It's Microsoft's app, they can do what the fuck they want with it. Use something else.

Re:Just use a different IM client... (4, Informative)

quanticle (843097) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362016)

The thing is, this isn't being blocked at the client level. Its the servers that are blocking these links. Even if you switch to a different client, like Adium, or Pidgin, these links will be filtered.

Re:Just use a different IM client... (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362304)

That's okay, they're Microsoft's servers too. I agree with GP - if you don't like it, use a different service.

vote with your wallet - upgrade messaging clients (4, Interesting)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362060)

... Use something else.

One of the best is pidgin [pidgin.im] , which runs a wide range of protocols. That's a step in the right direction and helps wean people off of MSN and into better services and more useful technologies.

However, from the article it looks like the problem is at the MS servers. So staying on MSN, even with a better client, is still helping feed money (via ads and such) into more anti-competitive behavior and barriers to interoperability.

What should also be mentions is that MSIE now gives 'security' warning messages when accessing Google's Gmail. No. I neither use nor condone use of MS in any way shape or form, but I do check up on those who claim they feel compelled to do so and use them to check periodically. Now that MS is going after Google, Gmail gets the errors. Now that MS is going after Youtube, it gets MS errors, too.

The courts don't won't can't keep up with all these illegal/unethical anti-competitive tactics. The only effective option is to just stop funding it. And that boils down to not using the products, formats, protocols or services tied to that company.

Ms Fanbois - explain this, now. (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361890)

if you can. in almost EVERY sh@t microsoft pulled in the last 6 months, you have been inventing lots of excuses. what is the reasonable excuse for this ? why shouldnt google censor keywords like microsoft, windows, xp, vista now ?

Re:Ms Fanbois - explain this, now. (3, Interesting)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361988)

nb: I use Microsoft products, but I'm not a "fanboi."

what is the reasonable excuse for this ?

I don't know that there's any excuse for this. it sounds damn-foolish to me.

why shouldnt google censor keywords like microsoft, windows, xp, vista now ?

Because the folks at Google aren't idiots?

Like it or don't, Microsoft is the market--and though lately it sounds like they're doing everything possible to lose that position, they've got it for the time being. Why would Google block search terms for the leading OS and software producer?

But back to Microsoft--I don't know who the moron was who thought blocking Youtube was a good idea, but if it's actually a policy decision within Microsoft, it's a damn stupid one.

Re:Ms Fanbois - explain this, now. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362370)

why shouldnt google censor keywords like microsoft, windows, xp, vista now ?
Because Google don't do evil(tm.)

Um, they don't have an IM monopoly! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23361902)

Ever heard of AIM, or Yahoo Instant Messenger? (I'm leaving Google's IM service out for now - oops - I just mentioned it). As I understand it, both AOL and Yahoo have more IM users than MS does, so this has NOTHING to do with a monopoly.

Re:Um, they don't have an IM monopoly! (4, Informative)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362080)

As I understand it, both AOL and Yahoo have more IM users than MS does
Depends where you look. Here in Brazil, for example, everyone uses MSN (usually the official client -- a security minefield and a disgraceful interface). And there was some story here, I recall, about how ICQ was still the leader at some countries.

Re:Um, they don't have an IM monopoly! (1)

mutantcamel (213431) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362204)

Just wanted to echo the same idea that here in China, MyQQ is the IM of choice of most of the Chinese internet users.

Re:Um, they don't have an IM monopoly! (3, Insightful)

bdsesq (515351) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362086)

so this has NOTHING to do with a monopoly.
No. But it has EVERYTHING to do with a monopolistic mindset.

Re:Um, they don't have an IM monopoly! (2, Insightful)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362134)

Hence the "hard to get away with in an arena where you don't enjoy a monopoly" comment. Meaning they're shooting themselves in the foot. The common person will simply decide MSN messenger is broken and switch.

Re:Um, they don't have an IM monopoly! (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362154)

Messenger is bigger [wikipedia.org] than AOL+Yahoo

Re:Um, they don't have an IM monopoly! (3, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362202)

They do have a monopoly in the UK (and perhaps many other countries in Europe). No one I've ever met uses AIM, a couple of people use Yahoo but they seem to have MSN anyway.

And this was posted on the Slashsphere? (2, Funny)

Leafheart (1120885) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361922)

A number of readers are sending word that the blogosphere and Twittersphere WTH is a Twttersphere? A new form on the R5 space?

DeviantArt (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23361938)

DeviantArt is blocked too, which is really bizzare.

Re:DeviantArt (2, Funny)

woodrad (1091201) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362270)

Blocking DeviantArt is a feature. Don't ruin a good thing, Microsoft.

No no (1)

DeadPanDan (1165901) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361954)

Messenger TV will have vastly superior anti-Rickrolling capabilities. The service that the article describes is a demonstration of the feature that will be in Messenger TV!

Nice Links - I guess it's Saturday (3, Insightful)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 6 years ago | (#23361980)

If the best source of news you can find is a blog with two columns devoted to ads, more ad space in the page that actual content, and that awful attempt at "web 2.0" design, then you probably shouldn't post it to /., or at least not on the front page.

Re:Nice Links - I guess it's Saturday (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362100)

Seconded. Dont bother with the articles, they dont have any more information than the summary.

Why cant we go back to web 1.0? I actually liked being able to find information with a google search instead of using this tagging bullshit.

Not bright (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23362006)

This is a dumbass move from a dumbass company (that overcharges for poor quality dumbass software). How many M$ execs does it take to match the light of a 15 watt (incandescent) lightbulb? All of them! This is one of the most pre-eminently stupid things I think I've ever heard of. There is no equal to YouTube in mickeysoft land. None! Blocking out the competition like this intentionally (and there is no rubbish you can pass on that can say 'oh phish' here), gets them the boob-cum-idiot award of the year (maybe even the decade). If there is an entry in the dictionary for 'stupid idiot' its this:
http://blog.protectwebform.com/images/microsoft_logo.jpg [protectwebform.com]

Monopoly (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23362012)

It's 2008 and the haters are still throwing around the word "monopoly". lol. Too bad Linux is getting squashed by Windows and Macs.

um... still @ 95% (2, Insightful)

toby (759) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362050)

I don't see any change to the monopoly position or behaviour, do you?

Nope, still the same old MS. And stories like this confirm - as hostile as ever to any whiff of fair competition.

Dear AC -1: your love letters notwithstanding, we're not going to rest till your beloved criminal monopoly is history. :)

More sites appear blocked as well (5, Informative)

ThreeGigs (239452) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362028)

deviantart.com
googlepages.com
mediafire.com
ebuddy.com
xanga.com

Workaround: don't add the "http://" in front of the address.

Re:More sites appear blocked as well (2, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362158)

Surprisingly no MS sites seem to have been blocked.

Re:More sites appear blocked as well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23362212)

Even more:
* .sytes.net
* /download.php

Re:More sites appear blocked as well (1)

Looce (1062620) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362262)

That workaround seems not to work. I just tried sending "www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGkxcY7YFU" to someone on my MSN contact list, and Pidgin has been reporting a switchboard error.

"youtube.com/watch?v=fbGkxcY7YFU" works, so does removing the hostname entirely. But leaving the "http://" out results in an error if you also have the complete hostname.

Correction, addendum (2, Informative)

Looce (1062620) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362282)

Sorry. I meant "Leaving the http:/// [http] in results in an error". Actually:

www.youtube.com/: blocked
youtube.com/: not blocked
http://www.youtube.com/ [youtube.com] : blocked
http://youtube.com/ [youtube.com] : blocked /watch?v=something: not blocked if you omit the host

Re:More sites appear blocked as well (-1, Troll)

Tweenk (1274968) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362374)

You complain that deviantart.com is blocked? You want DEVIANTS to conspire using MSN? googlepages.com and mediafire.com allow anybody to put child porn on the net, ebuddy.com caters to fetishists with MOBILE MASSAGING FOR EVERYONE, while xanga.com might look nice and family friendly on the outside, but it is a Web haven for nazis and communists! Microsoft is not trying to censor competition, it's trying to protect you and your children from molesters, terrorists, pirates and Satan! You should be grateful that they care about your well-being and protect you. Yet, you are still complaining instead of being thankful for the kind attention you receive. Man, what's happening with people nowadays? Can't any of you show some gratitude instead of moaning that Microsoft prevents you from harming yourselves and your families? I'm really disappointed with you, you rude, insensitive clods.

The new, more open Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23362032)

They don't get it, and it seems they never will.

Has anyone noticed ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23362040)

... that there are three consecutive MS stories on the /. front page?

Re:Has anyone noticed ... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23362128)

... that there are three consecutive MS stories on the /. front page?

Got to deplete the Microsoft fanbois/shills karma somehow.

SPARKY WANTS MORE M$ BASHING ARTICLES. MAKE EVERY SATURDAY MICROSOFT BASH DAY. /out

ah (1)

Ariastis (797888) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362074)

Thank you MS, for handicapping the only online service you had that i found useful. Now I can switch in peace...

Take off your tinfoil hats... (1, Troll)

heatdeath (217147) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362078)

"This block seems to be related to the recent launch of Messenger TV in 20 countries which allows for sharing video clips from MSN Video on messenger."

sigh.

When in doubt, the simplest explanation is correct. In this case, it's "somebody did something stupid" - nothing more. When you have a URL filtering system, somebody's bound to screw up and do something stupid. How would blocking youtube drive traffic to MSN TV?

Re:Take off your tinfoil hats... (1)

Prisoner's Dilemma (1268306) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362210)

"somebody did something stupid", maybe.

Someone thinking they can get away with blocking stuff that helps competitors, more likely.

Microsoft using their size and market share to underhandedly block/undermine competing products, most likely.

Re:Take off your tinfoil hats... (5, Insightful)

Sibko (1036168) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362352)

So let me get this straight, you think the simplest explanation is that someone screwed up and accidentally added youtube, a site that receives millions of visitors a month, is owned by Microsoft's rival Google, and is the most ubiquitous video sharing website in the world; to a blacklist. For several days. [And AFAIK, is still blacklisted.]

Personally, I think a simper explanation is that someone with poor judgment thought banning youtube links would somehow benefit Microsoft. Maybe the decision was a good one, or a bad one. But I certainly don't think it was just "It's an accident, lol!"

It's true (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362116)

I'm on my laptop which is an XP laptop with Windows Live Messenger version 2008 (Build 8.5.1302.1018) and it won't send Youtube URLs.

There is absolutely no legit reason for them to do this.

Someone got Rickrolled (0, Troll)

darkmasterchief (997565) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362130)

It seems like Gate's got tired of getting gayrolled by his buddies over at Headquarters. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ssh71hePR8Q [youtube.com] MSN on Crack

3 Microsoft stories in a row? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362142)

The empire is striking back! Everyone, brace yourself!

easy solution (1)

geek-trick (1231028) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362148)

posting a link in the folowing form works: /www.youtube.com/watch?v=V79owj81p0o

from RFC 4824 : NAK is (1)

zukinux (1094199) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362174)

NAK is negative acknowledgment, which means that the sender recognized that it received an incorrect packet / missed a packet.
RFC 4828 [ietf.org]

Re:from RFC 4824 : NAK is (4, Informative)

heatdeath (217147) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362226)

Not a TCP NAK, an MSNP NAK. MSNP messaging uses a NAK'ing model. (So, unless you get a response back, your message is assumed to have succeeded)

YIM? (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362180)

Doesn't MSNM and YIM share a network now? Does Yahoo Instant Messenger block YouTube links as well? If not, why not just ditch MSNM completely and use YIM now that the networks work with one another?

one email to the EU coming up... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23362184)

Oh well, if they want to incur further fines then pulling stunts like this is a perfect way to go about getting them.
One email to Neelie Kroes on its way....

They are gonna regret this (5, Insightful)

eiapoce (1049910) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362188)

Ms has the habit of getting into troube. This time they performed exceptionally well.

We have a legislation here (italy) that state that tampering with electronic communications with the aim to impede or modify the contents of the messages is a felony. This is because the same legislation for standard mail has been applied to emails, phone conversations and IM.


By my point of view MS is getting sacked really bad in EU. (And they fully deserve it!)

Re:They are gonna regret this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23362336)

I'm not certain what's going on here. Are MS quietly dropping those messages (then this may be covered as illegal tempering with communications), of if they reject the message and inform the sender that it could not be delivered. In the latter case, they are unlikely to be liable.

Re:They are gonna regret this (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362356)

How is this insightful. By this retarded interpretation of the law, an IM that doesn't let me send you messages when you're marked "away" is breaking the law. Or one that doesn't let me send a .exe file as a link. Spam filters would break this law by your "logic". In short, your interpretation of the law is retarded.

Re:They are gonna regret this (3, Insightful)

McD (209994) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362360)

We have a legislation here (italy) that state that tampering with electronic communications with the aim to impede or modify the contents of the messages is a felony.

I'd imagine the spammers and virus writers love that.

If your ISP strips executable attachments from email, are they felons?

If an email provider tacks on a signature block or advertisement, are they guilty as well?

Sounds like a tricky thing to legislate, however well intentioned.

the real scary part... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23362208)

Isn't just that Microsoft is blocking certain links from being shared...

But that they have the ability to comb every single message for sequences of bits they don't like and have demonstrated the willingness to use it for their own purposes (they are NOT "thinking of the children"; but rather, their bottom line and market share, squashing the enemy, etc)...

How long (or has it happened already) until the Feds ask for transcripts of every chat session that contains certain keywords? Or perhaps, maybe they already have a hook into the service's main servers and can sift through all messages at their leisure.

Hanlon's Razor (5, Interesting)

geckipede (1261408) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362296)

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." I'm having a hard time believing that stupidity stretches this far. My guess is that the MSN block list is maintained automatically and somebody found a way to feed bad data into the system.

Slava (1)

home-electro.com (1284676) | more than 6 years ago | (#23362354)

Yes, that's right, youtube links ARE blocked.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...