×

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!

Facebook Says It's Filtering Comments For Spam, Not Censoring Them

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the you're-not-worthy-you're-not-worthy dept.

Censorship 155

bhagwad writes "Apparently Robert Scoble tried to post a long comment on Facebook only to have a message pop up saying 'This comment seems irrelevant or inappropriate and can't be posted. To avoid having your comments blocked, please make sure they contribute to the post in a positive way.' If true, this is huge. For one the self-moderating system of comments has always been the rule so far. And with countries like India rooting for the pre-screening of content and comments, is Facebook thinking of caving into these demands?" Facebook says there's a more innocuous explanation: namely, that the comment triggered a spam filter.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

155 comments

positive way but not spam (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39906787)

if it triggered a spam filter, why don't they just say that comment was spam-like but ask the user to post in a positive way.

Re:positive way but not spam (5, Informative)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 years ago | (#39906805)

The article says they are rewording the message. On the other hand they wouldn't want to give too many hints on how to side step the spam filter. Spammers versus spam filters is a constant arms race

Re:positive way but not spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39906809)

Cus if it is a spammer they don't want that person posting. Neither do they want to tell the person how to bypass the spam filter.

Re:positive way but not spam (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#39906867)

Perhaps a poorly-worded attempt not to insult users by calling them spammers.

Re:positive way but not spam (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907499)

Sound to me more like a happy-go-lucky, family-friendly, no-negative-feelings allowed kind of filter.

You're only supposed to like stuff. It's anti-social to have sub-optimal feelings, citizen.

Re:positive way but not spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907515)

Is everyone on Slashdot a paranoid schizophrenic?

Re:positive way but not spam (3, Funny)

avgjoe62 (558860) | about 2 years ago | (#39907925)

Why do you ask? Are you trying to drum up business for your psychologist friends, trying to make us all think we're paranoid? Isn't this exactly what the government wants, making us all think we're sick in the head for thinking certain thoughts or expressing certain opinions? You're probably a paid shill, working for the international industrial-military cabal. Either that, or you're a liberal know-it-all that is happily walking to his own shearing.

I'm warning you people - it's a cookbook!

Re:positive way but not spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907945)

the more (non spam) comments the better. so they ask the spammer to put the comment in a better (not obvious spam) way.

From the TFA (4, Informative)

commlinx (1068272) | about 2 years ago | (#39906791)

Not sure how old this story is, but from among other things from TFA (well blog entry) that appear to be have updated over time:

2. My comment included three @ links. That probably is what triggered the spam classification system.

I don't use Facebook / Twitter but that along with other a few other characteristics of the message in question sound like a pretty reasonable way to set up a spam filter.

Re:From the TFA (5, Informative)

jouassou (1854178) | about 2 years ago | (#39906829)

On Facebook, you use @ links to mention friends in a post or comment. So if you say something innocent like "I went to the movies with @Jane, @Peter and @Bob", that would trigger such a spam filter.

Re:From the TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39906855)

I suppose it converts the names into links to their profiles. Reads a bit strange though, "I went to the movies with at Jane, at Peter and at Bob." :)

That undermines their business model (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907029)

Facebook wants you to insert links to those people's Facebook accounts/pages instead.

Duh.

Re:From the TFA (2)

Auroch (1403671) | about 2 years ago | (#39907155)

On Facebook, you use @ links to mention friends in a post or comment. So if you say something innocent like "I went to the movies with @Jane, @Peter and @Bob", that would trigger such a spam filter.

... only if you didn't habitually link to large numbers of people, AND if those people never interacted back.

Re:From the TFA (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#39908231)

That's still completely arbitrary. Essentially that's saying that if I'm not a complete drone and posting the same kinds of things all the time, I'll get flagged as Spam.

That's an even worse kind of censorship, because it is so insidious.

Facebook's more insidious censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39908649)

That's still completely arbitrary. Essentially that's saying that if I'm not a complete drone and posting the same kinds of things all the time, I'll get flagged as Spam.

That's an even worse kind of censorship, because it is so insidious.

Facebook has a more subtle, and therefore more insidious, form of censorship it applies: Facebook only shows you a subset of your finds posts and it prefers posts from friends who are compete drones posting drivel all the time. Posts from interesting friends who only post occasionally simply never get shown to anyone.

Similar to fark's "invisible bans" but sneakier because over time it subtly encourages you to post often and post mindless crap.

Re:From the TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907955)

isn't @ the way to link twitter users?

If only. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39906857)

Oh, you must not remember the goatse ascii stuff the trolls made prolific here in the early days of Slashdot.

To illustrate Slashdot's own comment filtering system, Try pasing the following into a Slashdot comment three times and hit preview.
@}-,-`-
You'll get:
Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.

Try typing something like "OMG PONIES OMG OMG OMG" without quotes and you'll get:
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Yet, a quarter of the people I know on FB use both forms *extensively*. If only they'd filter those out.

Listen up, surfboard face. It doesn't work. (0)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 2 years ago | (#39906807)

Myleen Klbutt applied to the Mrumpachusetts Insbreastute of Technology, but she didn't get in so she went to Svaginahorpe instead.

Re:Listen up, surfboard face. It doesn't work. (3, Funny)

Megane (129182) | about 2 years ago | (#39907055)

Good comment! I truly love how it is easy on my eyes and the data are well written. I’m wondering how I might be notified whenever a new post has been made. I’ve subscribed to your RSS feed which must do the trick! Have a great day! P.S. MicrosoftUggLiveBoots!

Actually, they do censor. (5, Informative)

OzUnsane (55826) | about 2 years ago | (#39906811)

Try exchanging even private messages using the term 'xtube'. Yes, they censor.

Re:Actually, they do censor. (4, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#39906885)

It's not always clear what motives are. For example, on MSN, you can't mention any address ending in no-ip.org. Microsoft did it, so I gather, because some botnet was using no-ip.org dynamic addresses and spreading via IM (One of those 'go to mysite.no-ip.org/pictures_of_the_holiday.exe' things I imagine), but it's still very annoying for people like me who have a legitimate use for no-ip.org subdomains.

Re:Actually, they do censor. (5, Informative)

Cito (1725214) | about 2 years ago | (#39907809)

I just tested that on my msn account

I tested on aim, msn, yahoo chat on my trillian client and I could paste that URL without it censoring

So it's not censored by the actual msn network at all.

The official msn client might censor it. But who uses official clients anyhow?

Trillian rocks and doesnt block anything for censorship. Worked just fine pasting a no-ip.org site, tested about 10 of them

Re:Actually, they do censor. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#39908623)

Maybe they stopped doing it. I don't want to pester any friends over just a test message, so I'll try it next time I talk to one of them for some other reason.

Re:Actually, they do censor. (2)

_merlin (160982) | about 2 years ago | (#39906937)

What interest would they have in preventing discussion of xtube? Are they operating a competing pr0n site?

Re:Actually, they do censor. (1, Insightful)

indeterminator (1829904) | about 2 years ago | (#39907133)

What interest would they have in preventing discussion of xtube? Are they operating a competing pr0n site?

They're thinking of the children, I would guess. And "grown-ups" using FB at work.

Re:Actually, they do censor. (4, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#39907317)

Porn sites tend to use affiliate marketing. Which means Joe Spammer can make money from people following his links to xtube. Not hard to see why it would become a sign of spam in the Facebook filter.

Re:Actually, they do censor. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907511)

Corporations like Facebook try to enforce a family-friendly environment, i.e. only boring and inane drivel is acceptable.

Re:Actually, they do censor. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39906975)

Redtube too.

don't overblow it (1)

mapkinase (958129) | about 2 years ago | (#39906817)

Unless something new is discovered, it's probably just an unfortunate wording. Had Facebook not tried to be more clever than it is, the developer would just placed "You triggered a spam filter" in the comment, user would complain, and Facebook would work on the spam filter.

From the other hand, where were the hordes of Martin Niemoller quoters when the spam filtering was introduced in the first place? If were a Nazi I would first came for that guy, so he would not leave this quote.

It's been a while. (4, Insightful)

ntropy (17310) | about 2 years ago | (#39906823)

First post since 1999 to say...

Delete your fucking Facebook account, idiot.

Re:It's been a while. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39906877)

Please wait 13 years to post the next time as well. You aren't contributing anything meaningful and might just as well shut up.

Re:It's been a while. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907209)

I disagree. IMO, FB is the 3vil. Your opinion obviously varies, but I found ntropy's post to be both insightful and funny.

Re:It's been a while. (3, Insightful)

Dupple (1016592) | about 2 years ago | (#39906879)

If you delete your account, all you are doing is depriving yourself access to what you have posted. You aren't depriving Facebook access to what you have posted.

Re:It's been a while. (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#39906971)

You are depriving Facebook of access to your future comments though. You're also making Facebook just a little bit less valuable to your friends (who can't use it to contact you anymore) and to advertisers (who can't use it to sell you things anymore).

Re:It's been a while. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907197)

OH MY GOD advertisers are trying to SELL ME THINGS??? This is the WORST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD!

nocapsnocapsnocaps

Re:It's been a while. (1)

mortonda (5175) | about 2 years ago | (#39907293)

You're also making Facebook just a little bit less valuable to your friends (who can't use it to contact you anymore)

... and nothing of value was lost.... ;)

Re:It's been a while. (-1, Redundant)

Grayhand (2610049) | about 2 years ago | (#39907019)

Wow 1999! Did you have to post in Latin or Sanskrit back then? Our history class in school says they were using something called Windows 98 at the time and most people wore an early form of blue jeans. Did they have iPods or were you still scratching "1"s and "0" into your MP3 players?

Re:It's been a while. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907045)

You aren't as funny as you think you are.

Re:It's been a while. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907207)

No, that was pretty funny.

Just stop using Facebook (5, Insightful)

rta (559125) | about 2 years ago | (#39906847)

Problem solved.

And actually, the guy who tried to post, is the reason why FB has so much power anyway. The blocked comment itself says he can't be bothered to read blogs anymore and he just watches FB, G+ and twitter. If you want to go swimming with sharks don't be surprised if you get eaten.

Re:Just stop using Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39906923)

If everyone who had a troublesome time with tech stopped using that bit of tech, we'd be back to banging rocks together.

Re:Just stop using Facebook (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907041)

If everyone who had a troublesome time with tech stopped using that bit of tech, we'd be back to banging rocks together.

I dont think he is saying stop using tech, just stop using Facebook, there are others out there, or you can roll your own, the tech is not dissappearing just because you don't use a corporate service.

Re:Just stop using Facebook (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#39907131)

So what's the Free alternative to FarmVille and other Flash games that use Facebook authentication?

Re:Just stop using Facebook (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#39907633)

So what's the Free alternative to FarmVille and other Flash games that use Facebook authentication?

Something that sucks less.

Re:Just stop using Facebook (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#39907741)

So what's the Free alternative to Facebook games that sucks less?

Re:Just stop using Facebook (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39908173)

I don't know, maybe wikipedia or something and follow that up with other sites or books that have information and work on the huge puzzle that is comprehending The World at Large. Or are we looking for a mindless repetitive task that releases endorphins in the brain? In which case I'd recommend pornography.

Re:Just stop using Facebook (2)

w_dragon (1802458) | about 2 years ago | (#39907199)

The tech of Facebook is the easy part. Building the community to the point that 90% of the people you know are on it, that's much more difficult. Google is on attempt 3 or 4 right now and they still can't get there, no matter how much money they throw at it.

Re:Just stop using Facebook (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 years ago | (#39907533)

If everyone who had a troublesome time with tech stopped using that bit of tech, we'd be back to banging rocks together.

I tried that once. My finger got caught between the rocks. It hurt like the dickens. I'm leaving the rock banging to the experts.

Now... Which way to the ocean?

Re:Just stop using Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907205)

If everyone stops using Facebook and moves to Twitter, people like you will just scream stop using Twitter. If people stop using Twitter and move to Google+, people like you will say stop using G+. The same for the next thing and the next. People like you will always say how the popular thing is terrible soul sucking and they're all out to get you.

Re:Just stop using Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39908141)

I aspire to one day to be as cool and smart and wise and hip as you are.

Simple solution.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39906849)

It is a "free" service from a corporation... If you don't like their terms don't use it.

Why do intelligent people (continue to) use FB? (3, Insightful)

sirdude (578412) | about 2 years ago | (#39906875)

In this information age where data-mining, credit/reputation ratings, etc. are the norm, why do people who are aware of its draconian privacy aspects, potential for misuse and the time sink that it is, continue to use FB? This is a serious 87 billion dollar question.

Re:Why do intelligent people (continue to) use FB? (2)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#39906925)

1) You may not care about the privacy aspects if you're OK with everything going public anyway
2) Misuse of data: see above
3) time sink? You could say the same about /., yet here you are. FB is only as big a time sink as you let it.

That said, I don't have an FB account, since I don't see many benefits for me and I don't want to litter [betabeat.com] .

Re:Why do intelligent people (continue to) use FB? (4, Insightful)

Sepodati (746220) | about 2 years ago | (#39906933)

It's a great way to keep in contact with a large group of people (family, friends, co-workers) and stay updated on a variety of topics (football, TV shows, news). I'm not going to email everyone individually. I'm not going to call everyone individually. They are not all individually going to come to my website or gallery. I'm not going to visit 30-odd websites to get the latest news/updates/posts.

I have no expectations of privacy for anything I do on the web, so I don't really care what FB does with my posts or interests. That's the real world. It's not an "ignorant sheeple" don't care... it's an "educated assessment of the personal value of the system" don't care.

If it doesn't work for you, then that's fine and obviously there are plenty of other options out there.

Re:Why do intelligent people (continue to) use FB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907819)

They are not all individually going to come to my website or gallery. I'm not going to visit 30-odd websites to get the latest news/updates/posts.

They are not all individually going to ... use Facebook, and you, as a technologist, should be leading the way.

You say you're making an "educated assessment of the personal value of the system" which other people (who trust you) will follow, but you moderate that assessment with "I have no expectations of privacy" and "I don't really care what FB does with my posts or interests". So do those who trust you, and point to your use of Facebook as an example of why it's OK, also understand the lack of privacy? And do they have the social and technical skills to protect themselves like you do?

If you're using FB because it's convenient, consider the downside for everyone else who's following your lead.

Re:Why do intelligent people (continue to) use FB? (1)

geekymachoman (1261484) | about 2 years ago | (#39906957)

Ordinary people(those that don't care much about anything else other then networking/connecting or whatever the term is) use FB, since it's easy and at this point, everyone has it. FB seems to be specifically made for them.

I use it to be in touch with them ordinary people (like my dad, sister, few friends not using computers at all except fb and such). /. Crowd can bash FB as much as they like, but the truth is for some of us, if we didn't use FB, we wouldn't be able to communicate with certain people, and to me that's more important then 'OH BUT YOUR FB IS USING YOUR PRIVATE DATA' paranoia everyone's into right now. What private data ? What I have to say, I say out loud, and they can use it I don't mind. I also use irc, msn, icq, gtalk, and other tools, and use them all for communication with certain people using the same technologies. Discrediting one of them is foolish.

Re:Why do intelligent people (continue to) use FB? (2)

hism (561757) | about 2 years ago | (#39907037)

Not having Facebook would seriously inhibit my social life. It is hard to avoid it when the vast majority of your social circle uses it to communicate and plan events. I try to limit what I share, what information I put on it, and avoid associating my other online accounts with Facebook, but I can't control what others put up about me...

Re:Why do intelligent people (continue to) use FB? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | about 2 years ago | (#39907685)

It is hard to avoid it when the vast majority of your social circle uses it to communicate and plan events.

The vast majority of my social circle doesn't fuck around with Facebook at all and we manage to communicate and plan events...

Maybe it's time to reexamine why they're in your circle to begin with if you leaving Facebook is going to actually strain your friendship? If they can't be arsed to shoot an email or text message to the guy that doesn't want to waste his time reading stupid bullshit (90% of Facebook status updates), then they're probably not your friend in the first place. I had friends that didn't own a cellphone until recently, but we still managed to include them by (GASP) picking up the fucking phone, dialing their home phone number, and leaving a message if they didn't answer. Not one of us said "God, fuck that guy; if he doesn't have a cell phone capable of receiving text messages, I'm not even going to bother talking to him at all..."

Just another example of how Facebook has cheapened the meaning of "friend" to include everyone you've ever come into contact with. If they won't include you if they can't message you in one particular way then they ain't your friends.

Re:Why do intelligent people (continue to) use FB? (1)

Rakshasa-sensei (533725) | about 2 years ago | (#39907065)

Totally agree.

Also, recently I also told all my friends to fuck off... Cause who knows what they'll do with all the personal information they're receiving.

Re:Why do intelligent people (continue to) use FB? (3, Insightful)

cvtan (752695) | about 2 years ago | (#39907085)

It's always annoying when people become successful doing things that you don't believe in.
You're just miffed that you didn't think of it first.
If your grandchildren are on it, you have to be on it. The end.
[But is is a colossal waste of time.]

Re:Why do intelligent people (continue to) use FB? (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 years ago | (#39907593)

[But is is a colossal waste of time.]

Ha! That's what they said about television, and look where that's taken us. I'd comment further, but my show's on.

Re:Why do intelligent people (continue to) use FB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39908613)

You're just miffed that you didn't think of it first.

I like how the minute anyone criticizes things that other people like, they're accused of jealousy (as if they can read minds). This ad hominem attack doesn't make any of their criticisms invalid, you know.

If your grandchildren are on it, you have to be on it. The end.

No, you don't.

Re:Why do intelligent people (continue to) use FB? (2)

hairyfish (1653411) | about 2 years ago | (#39907089)

In this information age where data-mining, credit/reputation ratings, etc. are the norm, why do people who are aware of its draconian privacy aspects, potential for misuse and the time sink that it is, continue to use FB? This is a serious 87 billion dollar question.

Don't put anything too personal on there and what is the problem? I've got a couple of hundred FB friends from various places I've worked and lived, in the 5 odd years I've been using FB the sum of all data I've read and contributed amounts to the following: Happy birthday I'm going out who wants to come? I'm hungover I'm going on holiday Look at my holiday pics Did you watch tonight's episode of xyz? Here's a photo of my cat/child This info is useful to me because it helps maintain relationships with people I like, how it is valuable to anyone else I still can't figure out.

Overdrinking leads to all sorts of excesses (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#39907175)

I'm hungover

Bingo. If you're hung over, then you probably drank too much. Overdrinking leads to all sorts of excesses in risk-taking: promiscuous sex, abuse of drugs, poorly executed extreme stunts, violence against others, and other ridiculousness. Do you want others to judge you for this?

Re:Overdrinking leads to all sorts of excesses (1)

Internal Modem (1281796) | about 2 years ago | (#39907719)

If they do judge me, them I'm better off without them...including employers. I feel sorry for those whose skills and talents are so common that employers look for reasons not to hire them.

Re:Why do intelligent people (continue to) use FB? (3, Interesting)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#39907357)

Because I can honestly say it's improved my quality of life. Thanks to they dynamics of Facebook I've:

1) Had a change of career.
2) I went to live in a very desirable foreign country for 2 years.
3) I manage to keep in touch with many more friends than I could possibly do before.
4) I get invited to social events that I wouldn't have heard about before.
5) My professional network is wide, and I hear about a lot of things that are useful to me professionally.
etc.

For sure it can be a time-sink. As can Slashdot. As can any web-site that keeps you engaged. If it wasn't useful and/or enjoyable it wouldn't be a time-sink.

Re:Why do intelligent people (continue to) use FB? (1)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#39907805)

Because it's really no different than using Usenet.

If you treat it as yet another "usenet" knowing full well what you post is public and archived by Google and other archivers, then it makes things a lot easier. Inb4 "X-no-archive=yes" - nobody uses that because Google/Dejanews is the only one that pays attention, and with AstraWeb and such other usenet providers advertising one or two years of retention, well, it's kinda useless.

--
BMO

My irony meter is pegged (3, Funny)

Arrogant-Bastard (141720) | about 2 years ago | (#39906903)

Prolific spammer Facebook allegedly implements an anti-spam mechanism? In related news, Exxon has announced that henceforth its offshore drilling platforms will be called "environmental enhancement modules".

There was nothing in the comment to censor (4, Insightful)

Zapotek (1032314) | about 2 years ago | (#39906907)

Here's the flaged comment from TFA:

I’m so glad I didn’t start a media business. It’s actually really tough to get new and interesting stories and to avoid falling into drama. People forget that Techcrunch was built step-by-step as a new publishing form was taking shape. PandoDaily doesn’t have that advantage and, is, indeed, facing competition from social networks that is quite good indeed. I no longer visit blogs. I watch Twitter, Google+, and Facebook, along with Hacker News, Techmeme, Quora. These are the new news sources. Plus, Pando Daily actually doesn’t have enough capital to compete head on with, say, D: All Things Digital or The Verge, both of which are expanding quickly and have ecosystems behind them.

There's nothing worth censoring in that comment, a guy made a post, the system flagged it as spam, it was a simple false positive. The fact that it's the first that we know of is pretty damn impressive, means that their system is probably working quite well.
I wish that the editors would quit with the sensationalist crap already, can we please use some common sense next time?

Re:There was nothing in the comment to censor (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39906999)

can we please use some common sense next time?

Common sense was common in the past, but people used too much and nowadays it's anything but common. So, no, we won't use it.

Re:There was nothing in the comment to censor (5, Funny)

dr_blurb (676176) | about 2 years ago | (#39907079)

There's nothing worth censoring in that comment, a guy made a post,

Well, he did mention Google+

Re:There was nothing in the comment to censor (1)

CriminalNerd (882826) | about 2 years ago | (#39907187)

The way I see it, I think the main reason that post triggered the spam filter is because it name-dropped a lot. You've probably seen a lot of spam where they go

"Are you a stay-at-home programmer dad getting fed up with Google+, Tumblr, Facebook, Blogspot, Twitter, LiveJournal, Slashdot, 4chan, Reddit, MySpace, Xanga, and Angelfire? Come to this new site at http COLON SLASH SLASH www DOT ${SITE}.cm/referrals.php?user=dr_blurb&userid=676176 (type it out in your address bar!) and get ahead of the Internet Revvolushun while making BIG BUCK$$$!! At ${SITE}, you can become the next Google or Micro$oft or Paypal or eBay and make lots of money like Donald Trump and Zuckerberg and Bill Gates!!"

That combined with a couple other /proprietary/ heuristics, and you have yourself a nice false positive (assuming his rant is actually a false positive).

Re:There was nothing in the comment to censor (0)

Threni (635302) | about 2 years ago | (#39907343)

Exactly. It's not a spam filter, it's an `undesired comment` filter. I'm sure they attempt to prevent several categories of post, not just spam. Perhaps if it told you the real reason it's blocking you - the category - it would be easier to understand and correct, and more open. But perhaps that's not what Facebook is after...

Re:There was nothing in the comment to censor (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#39907359)

For a while, any comment that mentioned Google+ disappeared. I don't know if that's the case, but I had assumed that everyone knew it was censorship. Most people had taken to calling "that other social network". I think their censorship was somewhat effective as well.

Re:There was nothing in the comment to censor (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | about 2 years ago | (#39907549)

there are plenty of reasons it could have been marked as spam!

Look at how many big names he used - Techcrunch, Pando Daily, Twitter, Google+, Facebook, Hacker News, Techmeme, Quora, Pando Daily(again), All Things Digital, The Verge

And then on top of that there are several words that collectively could add up to it being marked as spam - media, business, social media, capital, ecosystems - these are not words that most people use more then one of in a casual conversation on facebook

Re:There was nothing in the comment to censor (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907775)

I would imaging their filter has a line something like:

if (poster.Identity == "Robert Scoble") then isSpam = TRUE;

Either that or it doesn't like mentions of Twitter, Google+, and Facebook all in one sentence...

Re:There was nothing in the comment to censor (1)

safetyinnumbers (1770570) | about 2 years ago | (#39908225)

I once had an innocuous email bounce as spam and was curious why, since it was one sentence and a small attached file.

I took the raw message and re-mailed parts of it to myself, doing a binary search. The culprit was a block of uuencoded binary which contained the characters 1,8 and +.

Away with dead baby jokes on facebook? (-1, Flamebait)

DDoubles (2632819) | about 2 years ago | (#39906929)

I saw the following comment on a facebook page dedicated to a womans recentely deceased newborn, so I can see where they are coming from, anyways, the trollers will find a way, I am sure.

"What is funnier than a dead baby? A dead baby in a clown costume."

...followed by a newborn in a clown costume.

D!OLL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907087)

against vigorous had at lunchtime The mobo blew flaws in the BSD FrreBSD projec7, are almost the most. Look at of the GNAA I filed countersuit, enjoy the loud

Big Fuss Over Nothing (2, Informative)

Haedrian (1676506) | about 2 years ago | (#39907107)

The message he tried to put really looked like the sort of thing bots post. I'm not surprised at all an automated spam filter blocked it. He did mention 11 different 3rd party websites in it, so its not too amazing that it flagged.

But as usual facebook is run by evil commies who want to oppress our free speech and all that.

Re:Big Fuss Over Nothing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907409)

You know what kind of people should be censored?
The complacent people, the "it's not a big deal" people, the "it's not happening to me, so I don't care, but you should not care either" people.

gonna celebrate ipo listing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907259)

by deleting my fb account

Just a few simple questions, mr Facebook (4, Insightful)

aglider (2435074) | about 2 years ago | (#39907345)

What'd be the difference between "filtering" and "censoring"?
How would you tell spam and non-spam apart?
Will I still be able to read what you filtered out as spam?
Why don't you leave the users themselves to trash what they consider useless on their own?

Re:Just a few simple questions, mr Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907423)

Because then they need to wade through an ocean of spam themselves and flag things before the personalized Baysean spam filter gets populated, and that's shitty.

Facebook is big... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907361)

... with having shoddy scripts deciding all sorts of things for you. Like what name you can have.

They can name it what they like, their filtering is full of american- (california-) centric assumptions that don't hold elsewhere. Comment longer than a tweet? must be spam. And so on. Frankly, amazing how much of that sort of abuse people put up with.

Facebook is shit (-1, Troll)

aliquis (678370) | about 2 years ago | (#39907449)

Who cares?

Totally random piece of shit.

You include a link in your comment? Maybe you get a preview, maybe you don't.

You want to change something? Maybe [x] actually means edit, maybe it don't.

You removed your comment with no preview to post the same content again with a preview? Maybe it shows up for your friends, maybe it doesn't. Who the fuck knows?

Settings? Yeah they are everywhere.

Want to link an image? Don't click it because that will give you a different image viewer than ctrl-click it to open it in a new tab.

It's amazing how that crap can be the biggest social media site around. Guess it tells how much people want to be noticed.

Slashdot is Promoting Google+ ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907639)

Man, are those Google engineers growing lonely talking to each other because nobody's using their redundant social network?

Encourage people to go outside, meet people, screw girls instead of giving yet another company access to the minutae and details of their lives to raise advertising revenue.

Also what the fuck, Slashdot? No trust in the moderation system anymore? Why would anyone flag a comment as 'inappropriate' if moderation works? Since Taco went to greener pastures it seems this place has begun its downslide in earnest.

TPB (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39907967)

They block the Pirate Bay links, give it a shot if you'd like.

One word. (2)

pro151 (2021702) | about 2 years ago | (#39908023)

I will wait on the down mod but I feel compelled to reply to their excuse with the only applicable word....BULLSHIT!

Laugh (1)

koan (80826) | about 2 years ago | (#39908087)

Look at all the names he dropped,

I no longer visit blogs. I watch Twitter, Google+, and Facebook, along with Hacker News, Techmeme, Quora. These are the new news sources.

that's why it got filtered.

Content filtering is bad (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#39908093)

I know its their right as a commercial entity, but its wrong to filter anyone's content.

I hope more people find out and show their disapproval with their feet. ( i know, its wish full thinking )

Captchas... (1)

advocate_one (662832) | about 2 years ago | (#39908127)

I posted a youtube link that was on topic to someone elses youtube link on their status update and I got hit with a captcha challenge to prove I was human...

FUCK FACEBOOK sideways with a rusty chainsaw! (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 2 years ago | (#39908139)

I have never regretted closing and deleting the Facebook page that I had. I'm even more glad that it didn't use my real name or ever have any pictures with me in them anywhere on Facebook. Facebook is a fucking social virus and I'll celebrate the day it comes crashing down in ruin. I'll also laugh and point at all of you who scoffed at my valuing privacy on the day that it finally dawns on you that you've screwed yourselves over six ways from Sunday by putting your entire life on the damned thing.

CAPTCHA bypass? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39908703)

Is there a way to post exactly what you wanted to originally, by jumping through a captcha hoop? If there is a prove-I'm-a-human way around it, then seems like a reasonable heuristic-triggered spam-filter to me. If not... it's definitely censorship.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...