Slashdot Log In
Microsoft IM Blocking YouTube Links
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat May 10, 2008 12:59 PM
from the walled-playground dept.
from the walled-playground dept.
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.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Rickrolls (Score:4, Interesting)
It's reasons such as this that make me prefer AIM/ICQ and Jabber.
This should surprise no one (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems rather foolish (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean who doesn't share youtube videos over IM?
Sorry but this just seems ridiculous
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:This seems rather foolish (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Nice Links - I guess it's Saturday (Score:4, Insightful)
More sites appear blocked as well (Score:5, Informative)
googlepages.com
mediafire.com
ebuddy.com
xanga.com
Workaround: don't add the "http://" in front of the address.
They are gonna regret this (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the software blocks incoming messages at the behest of the recipient, as is the case with spam filtering and "do not disturb" type IM configurations, it's obvious that the software is acting as an agent for the user wherever the code is running.
The law is cheifly concerned with the actions of men and not of the tools they use. This is the right way to do things.
Hanlon's Razor (Score:5, Interesting)
Put tinfoil hats back in drawer... (Score:3, Informative)
Friend in Belgium alerted me to the issue, as trying to send a link across the room to her friend would even fail.
After some investigation...
It looks like it was a temporary error in the server response, so instead of saying yes, it would just deny the link out of default, suspecting an attack or a bot.
The server responses are now working correctly and so are the links.
Back to your tinfoil and OFFICIAL MS IS ALWAYS EVIL CLUB of the insane...
PS - How come when Google/Firefox re-routes or blocks URLs, (in error or for questionable reasonss) it never makes it to the front of SlashDot?
Get over MS, they dumped you or you them, they are your ex girlfriend, you have a new girlfirend(OS), quit stalking her... (Wait, bad analogy in a geek forum.)
Star Wars Episode III screwed you, get over it... (Better analogy?)
As long as .... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First (Score:5, Funny)
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. :-)
Parent
May 10, 2008: The day Slashdot died. (Score:4, Insightful)
Once again, Twitter, Slashdot's most maniacal anti-Microsoft troll, beats on the truthout.org dead horse. Of course, Twitter and Marc Ash are cut from the same cloth. They both believe that they are so noble, and their causes so righteous, that they can freely stoop to any depth, and engage in whatever underhanded behaviour they please.
Marc Ash was caught spamming totally unrelated Yahoo! Groups [spamcop.net] by joining and blasting emails through group addresses.
Twitter threadjacks a story, then shills his comment with three of his army of sockpuppets, including two accounts that are impostors of his critics.
And Slashdot does nothing.
Instead, Rob Malda posts this gem [slashdot.org] to the front page, claiming that Microsoft "prefers" Flash to Silverlight because Microsoft doesn't have some super-special-secret transmogrifier that could spontaneously transform each and every Flash animation on each and every web site Microsoft owns into Silverlight content, and didn't use it the very minute Silverlight 1.0 was released to the public.
Slashdot has turned reason and common sense and honesty against its own readers.
Delete your bookmarks, people. Redirect slashdot.org to 127.0.0.1 in your hosts file, in case you get the urge to go back. There's no point.
There are plenty of places where advocacy of Free and Open Source software is done without the community being exploited. Slashdot is no longer one of those places. Their hatred of Microsoft has become all-consuming, and they're proud of it. Time to leave them shouting into empty space.
Parent
Re:Threadjack - M$ Blocks Political Email. Re:Firs (Score:4, Informative)
They've been convicted of monopolistic practices. They keep up at them. They get fined for each time they do, but the fines never address the problem.
I would see one solution: if their online services get caught trying to participate in monopolistic practices, make sure the court orders them to sell the online service to a hostile party. Not just a third party, it has to be someone who has a fiduciary responsability to make microsoft shares worth zero. Tell them right now that's the next penalty for this, and we'll see if they do it again.
I can just imagine msn being owned by a consortium of ibm and aol(ok ok I need a better example...)
Parent
Re:First (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But wait, there's more! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.]
Parent
Re:But wait, there's more! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.]
Yahoo has been blocking Photobucket.com links for ages in Yahoo chat. This is nothing new. Seems like it's getting to be pretty much S.O.P. these days for large 'net-service companies that provide multiple services including IM/chatroom-type services. Just forbid URLs to competitions' websites and services from being communicated over your services, and to heck with what the user wants.
Nevermind that most peoples' reactions that discover this that I've seen was anger, disgust, and frustration, along with a fierce determination to *never* use Flickr (Yahoos' photo/video upload service) just because of this stupidity, and even closing accounts there. Way to retain users, there, Yahoo!
I'm waiting to see if it comes to the point that things like the MSN Messenger installer silently removes competing IM/chat service client software. Or when things like Yahoo Messenger blocks the installation of competing services' software, or refuses to install while that software is present, and/or adds entries to the hosts file, blocking access to competitors'websites and services.
When will these corporations learn that users naturally tend to use multiple providers for any one function or service, and that these kinds of childish behaviors only alienates them?
Cheers!
Strat
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Its not censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are totally incorrect. All censorship occurs in some context -- some censorship is small, others large. But it is censorship just the same.
Would you say, "My message gets blocked by the US government, but I can still publish it in Canada, so my message gets out somewhere, hence i
Re:Its not censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
no, the right to free speech does not include destruction of prperty [an infringement on your rights] nor does it involve illegal trespass. which reminds me, where exactly does a youtube link fit into that on MSN? does that apply to phone calls too, after all it's their infrastructure you're using??...
Parent
Re:Its not censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and no. ISPs, phone companies, etc are all legally protected (much more than normal property owners) from liability for the content that crosses their networks so long as they don't cross a certain threshold of editorial control.
I'd say that this definitely crosses that threshold. IOW, MS is taking legal responsibility for the content of messages passed on their system. You could sue Microsoft if someone verbally assaults you on MSN, and you might actually have a chance in court.
So while the act itself may be "perfectly legal", it does have strong legal implications.
Parent
Re:Its not censorship (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True, however... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like you're the sensationalist one out for attention.
Parent
Re:True, however... (Score:4, Interesting)
No problems with gtalk [google.com]. Users being blocked ought to switch.
Wonder what Google will do to retaliate. MSN is Microsoft, YouTube is Google. Court or MS-WAR? (MS-Windows Annihilation and Replace). But this could get real interesting fast.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 hippie
Re:Its not censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Its not censorship (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:I call BS (Score:5, Informative)
If I remove the http and www it works, it also works if I change the youtube domain name...
Parent
Re:I call BS (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I call BS (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I call BS (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Just use a different IM client... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
vote with your wallet - upgrade messaging clients (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
um... still @ 95% (Score:3, Insightful)
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. :)
Re:Um, they don't have an IM monopoly! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Um, they don't have an IM monopoly! (Score:4, Insightful)
No. But it has EVERYTHING to do with a monopolistic mindset.
Parent
Re:Um, they don't have an IM monopoly! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here in Sweden everyone use MSN aswell, which suck.
I think ICQ was quite large in Germany still, Poland have their own IM-client and ICQ are still biggest in Russia aswell. So it all depends on where you live.
I guess people switched because of Hotmail being bought by Microsoft, included Messenger in the OS and the webcam support.
Re:Um, they don't have an IM monopoly! (Score:5, Insightful)
MSN, SMS, MySpace... wherever the teenage girls go... the guys soon follow.
Teenage Girls sadly are dictating modern technology. Why do you think SMS costs so much? Highschool girls who don't have to pay for their cell phone bills, that's who!
Parent
Re:from RFC 4824 : NAK is (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Take off your tinfoil hats... (Score:5, Insightful)
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!"
Parent