Facebook Censorship

Last week was a big week for Facebook. They announced the release of their new email/SMS/IM service that they hope will replace your need for other email clients (they’re talking about you Google). It’s a great moment for Facebook. Before all of us drink the Kool-Aid and start switching over to a spam-free world, there was another announcement of sorts that was reported on TechCrunch. Facebook is censoring sites with whom they have a legal tiff.

The humor site Lamebook was banned from all of Facebook. That means you can’t link to it from your wall, send a link within Facebook to a friend or use their new email service to send outbound messages. If Facebook wants their new communication service to work, censoring content is not the best way to go.

This may not seem like a big deal. It’s just Facebook defending their turf until you think that Lamebook doesn’t violate any of Facebook’s terms. It’s not hateful, threatening or pornographic. It doesn’t incite violence, contain nudity or have graphic or gratuitous violence. What it does do is allow people to submit screenshots of humorous comments found on Facebook.

Facebook's new spokesperson

The two sites have been in a heated legal battle after Lamebook filed for a declaratory judgment asserting that it is not violating Facebook’s trademark. The two parties have been in negotiations for some time. Facebook filed a counter suit alleging that Lamebook violated its trademark. Also in retaliation, it appears that Facebook blocked all mentions of Lamebook and took down its fan page.

Facebook has constantly been adding features to make it the one stop place for all your online needs (think AOL in the 90’s and we all know how that turned out). If the mega site wants to be your one-site-fits-all solution, it can’t also result to petty blocking of content just because someone doesn’t agree with them. Lamebook is just a site we know about. This begs the question, how many other websites have been blocked because of a grievance?

Are we putting too much trust in Facebook? It already has more photos uploaded daily, shares more content, and sends more messages than any other site. For many people, their online lives begin and end with Facebook. Knowing that the site is willing to act like a petulant child doesn’t instill trust or confidence. 

Facebook should distance itself from the content its users post. They certainly should work within their terms of condition but being vindictive against a site to deter companies from suing you sets a disturbing precedent. 

Facebook has allowed people to start sharing content from Lamebook again. They claim it was a “mistake.” I’m not sure how deleting a site you’re suing and are being sued by is a “mistake.” They blocked all mentions of “Lamebook” from the site. It seems pretty deliberate. 

Is it ok for Facebook to censor sites they don’t agree with? Or is this just a case of Facebook being overzealous in their trademark protection

Stefan Halley is the Digital Project Leader for The Duffy Agency. He loves to talk about social media.

Tweet