If Facebook's algorithms determine a comment you make is "low value," they can refuse to post it. At least that's what happened recently when tech pundit Robert Scoble tried to comment on a Facebook post by Carnegie Mellon student Max Woolf.

The fact that Facebook's spam filter blocked Scoble's comment and called it "irrelevant or inappropriate" is ironic on a number of levels.

First, thousands of people generally find both Scoble's and Woolf's everyday musings on technology highly relevant. Scoble's got more than 255,000 followers on Twitter, nearly 240,000 subscribers on Facebook and 1.3 million people have put him in their circles on Google+. And Max Woolf, who comments endlessly on the website TechCrunch, has himself.

It's also interesting that the comment Scoble was trying to make was in response to Woolf's views about an article discussing the relevancy (of all things) of Pando Daily, another tech blog that a writer for The Kernel said is losing traffic because of "a disappointing lack of proper journalism."

Not only that, the very nature of Facebook is irrelevant, isn't it? If I had a dollar for every post my friends have shared about what they're eating, how much they're exercising and other rot, I'd be set. Who even knew that Facebook had a spam filter and wouldn't you think it would work better than it does? Ever seen one of those ridiculous free iPad giveaway spams float down your stream?