LiveJournal Says Users are Responsible for Content of Links 283
Many of you might remember the previous story about LiveJournal erroneously deleting hundreds of users as suspected paedophiles, spurred on by pressure from the group, Warriors for innocence. Since then, they've been taking action against users hosting material on their servers that they believe to be illegal. Today, LiveJournal management have demonstrated a serious lack of understanding in how the internet works, declaring that users are responsible for the content of the webpages that they link to in their blog entries. A user points out the obvious flaw: "I get ToS'd because the link's been redirected to a page full o' porn, even though context clearly shows that when I originally put up the link that it didn't actually land on a page of porn?"
One wonders how such a long-established blogging company can be so ignorant about the nature of the world wide web.
No right to protection from stupidity (Score:4, Informative)
To speak of 'rights' on their web site is sort of speaking about rights at K-Mart. You don't have any. If you don't like what K-Mart does, you leave and go to their competitor.
If LiveJournal does something that you find intolerably stupid, then quit and go post on their competition's web site.
None of which... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:None of which... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:None of which... (Score:4, Funny)
I went on their site, and found that their site alone was not work safe. Hypocritical bastards.
Re:None of which... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:None of which... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not expectations, but habits. Expecting this from other people is silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is the where you live that far down the toilet that the normal standards of society don't apply?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the difference between US and Canada?
Really, it depends on the city. Detroit is a joke. San Francisco is pretty tame, Chicago in between.
I have lived in Detroit for a decade and still find it openly threatening during the day. Bums will borderline assualt for dollar. And these bums have blackberries -- something I can't afford myself!
Re: (Score:2)
More like the difference between the US and the rest of the world.
(btw, I'm from the US.)
Re:None of which... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:None of which... (Score:4, Insightful)
*Maybe I was brought up strange, but I was always taught that this was the normal way to behave, and encounter people who also behave likewise all the time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a difference between child rapists and the people that WfI targets. WfI targets anyone who happens to not fit their definition of a "fine, upstanding citizen" - could be queers, could be pedos, could be them funny brown people, could be people who like drawing funny pictures, they're all the same to WfI.
Of course, the not-so-funny thing is, the vast majority of child rape is perpetrated by NON-pedos. So, by sending people haring off after pedos, they're targeting the wrong people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely you're allowed to! In fact, you're not only allowed to, it's required! No "understanding" or "analysis of what causes it" is allowed here! Just blind, reflexive, thoughtless mob mentality! Plus, you can safely apply the label to pretty much anybody you don't like and safely hate them, too. It's not required to actually do it to be one, after all - just thinking about it, or being somebody that looks like they might be thinking about it, is enou
Congratulations. (Score:3, Informative)
Either you are a troll who has successfully mastered the ad hominem attack, or you're unable to handle the cognitive dissonance of the following situation:
If the GP disagrees with they way with which WFI goes about spreading their message, it does not neccesarily imply that the GP disagrees with the message itself.
Either way, learn to think critically before making posts on Slashdot in the future, please.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
LiveJournal is already dead man walking. A lot of my older friends have LJs, but I asked around my workplace (which is a company in an internet-related field) - most of the people here are younger than me, and not a single one of this MyFaceBookSpaceTube-generation had even heard of LiveJournal.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is pretty much everywhere now, myspace is becoming a niche product used to pubilicise new bands. There's also another one waiting in the wings I forget the name (something silly like 'boing' but not that) ready to take over if facebook dies.
Re:None of which... (Score:5, Interesting)
(catfood brands theory - if you have 2 companies making 1 brand of catfood each with about 50% market share, it makes sense to launch another brand rather than trying to promote your existing brand. So now you have 2 companies, one with 2 brands and 1 with 1 brand. The newly launched brand will take away sales from both existing brands but with the company with 2 brands benefiting overall. Until, obviously, the second company launches 2 new brands. And so on.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No right to protection from stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where?
Oh, you mean, "Hear, hear."
Be that as it may... (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, who will learn from their example if no one makes an example of them?
Re:Be that as it may... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone can be a flaming hypocritical asshat, but that won't make an example of anyone. It's more or less the same as the WoW forums (as well as EQ forums, DAoC forums and any other main-stream MMO game in it's hayday). All you get is a bunch of idiots yelling "F!U Bliztards! I KNOW GAZ!LL!ON PEOPLE WHO ARE LEAVING BEKAZ OF NEW CANGE"
Just RTF synopsis and some of these /. asshat comments.
What an incredibly stupid and sensationalist remark. Yes, lets think. The people who built and manage a fairly popular website (incredibly popular compared to most of the internet sites out there) have no clue how the Internets work. It's just a series of tubes to them. Of course, I'll believe whatever you(the quoter) say and just because you(the quoter) said it! Of course, their reasoning for it is even worse.
Yes, more sensational bullshit. I didn't see the LJ TOS [livejournal.com] specifically say that you are responsible for the content of another website. What I did read is as follows..
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't about how Six Apart or LJ likes to interpret the TOS. It's about how LJ users want to interpret the TOS. But lets put it a different way...
Premise A) The LJ TOS clearly states you cannot post "objectionable" material? objectionable being defined in the TOS under MEMBER CONDUCT but specifically item 1...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No right to protection from stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they are "rights."
You say we "don't have any" rights when at K-Mart? This is false on its face, and anyone can see it. If you walk into K-Mart they have no right to bind and gag you, nor to handcuff you and throw darts at you for entertainment, nor to forcefully take a blood sample.
Sure, they can legally ask you to leave when you enter wearing a t-shirt which they dislike -- but that doesn't make them ethically correct in doing so.
Your redefinition of "rights" to include only major human/civil rights, encoded in law as actions the government may not take against individuals, is mere wordplay -- whose effect is to semantically limit those rights you'll permit people to demand for themselves. When we demand certain rights, it does not matter whether the entity infringing upon those rights is the government or not. They are rights by dint of their infringement being unethical.
Re:No right to protection from stupidity (Score:4, Funny)
Well crap, so much for that business plan...
Re:No right to protection from stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
This is unfortunate; online communities could well operate like governments, with a concept of citizenship and taxation, rather than as business enterprises, with a concept of customer accounts and fees, but very few of them seem to any more.
But it's very difficult to say "If you don't like the way things are run here, you can just leave." It's not easy to export a livejournal account to another service with more agreeable ToS. It's not easy to leave the friends and contacts behind when you move your blogging to another service.
Anyway, it seems people are leaving (Score:2)
We'll see if that has an effect on the policies of LJ
Re: (Score:2)
Right, like it's that easy.
How fickle do you have to be to drop your diary and all your friends at the slightest inconvenience? How much inconvenience will you tolerate before you will move? You don't like something, you weigh your options. Taking your business elsewhere almost always the last resort, not the first option one would consider.
When you're closely tied up in social relationships with other customers in the community, it's very difficult to leave
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's quite accurate to say that it is in fact both a
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make what they do right. Also, you can use the same argument in support of anything the government does- and many do. That doesn't make them right, why would it make you right?
Being legally acceptable doesn't make it morally acceptable or publicly acceptable, and we shouldn't treat it as if it does, lest we instill the idea that laws = morals and morals = laws.
Re:No right to protection from stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
To speak of 'rights' on their web site is sort of speaking about rights at K-Mart. You don't have any.
That's not true, per se. One does have right at K-Mart. For example, K-Mart may not turn me away even if I'm a minority or if I'm in a wheelchair. There are anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws that grant me certain rights even if I'm inside private property.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, LJ and K-Mart are private companies. Congratulations on stating the obvious. Can you please point out where anyone claimed they were acting as agents of the government?
Back to the discussion, which is about whether or not it is appropriate, sensible or logical for LJ to implement this policy.
Re:No right to protection from stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
One such right is the right of LiveJournal to avoid any liability for defamatory material posted on their site by members. The law explicitly exempts LiveJournal (and other service providers) from the same liability a newspaper would carry if it printed the same materials. There is zero government involvement.
Another, perhaps more analogous, example is that a landlord cannot put in a lease that they can evict you without cause or without notice. Sure, it's the landlords private property, but the courts have long held that as it becomes your home you have certain rights which trump the private property holder. Again, no government involvement needed.
Which is all a way of saying that the "right" to not be deemed in violation of ToS because a link you pointed to has changed to something different is not a far-fetched right. It's just another layer of rights and regulations that form the web that is our legal framework.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the backstory - after the WfI mess, LiveJournal made certain reassurances to its users. Shortly after that, there was a permanent account sale where (for one week only) people could buy "permanent" accounts for $150. Two weeks after this, they made "clarifications" that technically didn't contradict what they'd said earlier but still came as a nasty surprise to some people. Then they banned two users for stuff that they reckoned was against the rules with the new "clarificatio
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not about "your rights online". LiveJournal is a private company, not a govenrment agency. Their web site is private property, and it is not a monopoly.
Can we let this meme die? If I kill you, your right to life has been infringed. If I kidnap you and lock you in a small room, your right to liberty has been infringed. If I put ducktape over your mouth, your right to free speech has been infringed. All of these are occurrences in which you have lost rights without any government intervention.
The US constitution only protects your rights from the government, because its authors believed they were the biggest threat to your rights. This does not mean t
Re: (Score:2)
By filth you probably mean porn, right?
So someone might post some porn on Livejournal. If you don't like it, don't read it. How exactly is porn going to take over and force out nonpornographic uses of LJ?
Very strange considering it's roots. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
hah! (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet!
You know, if your landlord declared tomorrow that he is not responsible for any drug trafficking you do from your rented apartment, and you yourself are responsible for your actions, it would hardly be seen as unfair(especially if there are 1000 other tenants in the high-rise, thus making it impossible to check up on all of them individually).
Why is it anyways with America's obsession with sex on the net, while in real life, solicitations of all and any such activities run unhindered and unnoticed? A pedophile can much more easily target the kids of people he knows. Such has always been the case since they already have the advantage of being trusted. It is not like pedophiles were not there without the net.
How hard is it to pull out the cable of your PC and hide it in a lock, when you are not using it? There are computer cases that can be locked you know... if you really think it is that big a threat. If you think internet is a threat then don't allow kids to use it unsupervised. Ask your local libraries and schools to ensure that unsupervised access to public computers is not given to minors. Are you that retarded or lazy to not see the simple solution? Or you are one those guys who couldn't be bothered to give time and attention to your own kids? In that case, you shouldn't be having kids in the first place!
Think of the children indeed! It would be much much better for the children if they just considered merely "thinking" in the first place! Sheesh!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But frankly, this is all the fault of
Re: (Score:2)
That's just the problem, this is to paying customers. They don't have a right to terminate these accounts at all, considering their ToS changed after these users paid.
If these were just free accounts it would be expected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For example, Google's "community sites" thing "Blogger.com" has approximately 7 out of 10 of it's profiles some sort of spam, link lists (for search rankings to other sites), thinly veiled search whitewashing, malicious program installers, and some that redirect to porn. (The last one has kept me from visiting the site at work, the pop ups and stuff work even in FireFox.)
This policy, is a tool that can help them have a rule that lets the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Though that quote... "if the content is otherwise legal." I suspect the issue is that what they have been pointed at are incest or pedophilia type stuff, and while the fiction is probably legal, I suspect they just plain are not really reviewing things well. If the content is legal they are not obligated to remove it, but what is or is not legal on the Internet (even in the US, given differing state laws) i
Umm... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, isn't it perfectly within LJ's right to protect itself and remove accounts who are linking to porn ? Is it not *your* responsibility to make sure that sites that you link to aren't something that "parent company" wouldn't object to ? Where parent company is a web host, employer or anyone else who *owns* the property (web server, domain etc.) that you are hosting your page on ?
So the owner of the link changed the page. That means Live Journal should just sit back and say "oh well... our domain is linking to porn and our policy clearly states that we do not allow that, however, since the link was obviously changed to redirect to porn *after* the page owner linked to it we'll just leave it there and do nothing" ?
Ok, so they could pull the link and inform / warn the user etc. But then the question is raised, who's responsibility is it to check those links ? IMO the guy who signed up for a Live Journal account and linked to the site that eventually got changed and redirected should be held responsible.
Maybe I'm a little biased because I'm a webmaster. But I make it a point to check the links on my sites periodically because they change. I don't expect my web hosting provider to do it for me. Not that my hosting provider would terminate my account for anything short of something extremely illegal anyway. But for my own reputation and for the sake of giving my surfers a pleasant and consistent surfing experience free of anything that they would not expect or want to come across while browsing my sites I check my links every once in a while.
And it is certainly within LJ's rights to remove pages on their servers that are violating their TOS. I don't see how it has anything to do with understanding the nature of the Internet. I haven't read their TOS but I'm assuming somewhere in there is "Don't Link To Porn Sites" and I'm also pretty sure that there is NOT an "Except unless the page you're linking to was changed afterwards" clause.
Re:Umm... (Score:4, Informative)
Oh and.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people's journals have thousands of entries, which would be impossible for a user to continually check through. It would be much easier for the webmaster to have a small program that loops through the users, and their entries, does a quick check on any links to other sites (e.g. for "bad" words etc...) then emails the user with a warning (it could even keep track of how many warnings a user had been sent). It
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, their statement was in a semi-obscure community [livejournal.com] that's not followed by most users - only the users who have been paying close attention know about it, and most of them probably don't h
Bad summary and random story! (Score:3, Interesting)
The blog post in question states:
If there's any good news, current policy dictates that if LJAbuse is able to determine based on the content around your link that you initially posted to a "safe" site and that link has now been redirected, you will be contacted and asked to fix the link. They will most likely not use it as a "strike" against you in their shiny new "two strikes yer out policy" if LJAbuse decides that you didn't intend to link to a site LJ/6A thinks contains ToS-able content.
Which contradicts the comment quoted in the summary.
Of course, as sick as I am of the "LET ME TELL YOU INTERNETS IT IS HARD TO BE AN OPPRESSED HARRY POTTER FANFICCER", I do hope that LJ isn't really going to start kicking people out for old links.
I used to have a Barbie site that got a fair bit of traffic, and of course (this being the late 90s when a links page was a requisite for any site), I had a page of links to my other favorite Barbie sites. I once got a letter in the snail mail from a lady telling me what a horrible person I am for luring children in with Barbie stuff and then showing them porn. Sure enough, one of the doll domains had been bought out as a "doll" domain, and this lady for some reason thought that I had actually gone through the trouble of creating a site with all this info on doll collecting (and I'm sure 7-year-olds find listings of flaws discovered upon deboxing a doll fascinating) just to lure kids into a porn site. Oh, and that was the day I learned not to put my home address on my online resume.
Re: (Score:2)
though it remains to be seen if they will actually follow what their policy says.
Could be symptomatic of a deeper problem ... (Score:2)
Perhaps they are in need of some of those Alzheimer's implants referred to in another recent story.
LJ's own ToS shows their hypocrisy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see this in the future, and my thoughts (Score:2)
What I see happening is this: LJ, with their history, will provide a warning. If it was a meme and it got goatse'd, then yeah, the blogger is technically responsible, but I'm fairly sure they won't be ToS'd because of some fuckwit's prank that they apparently think is laughable. On the other hand, if the person is posting links to chil
What problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
You should be responsible for sites you link to, you're the one sending your readers there.
How can a person be responsible for a site they link to? The content of that site could change at any time. If I was held legally responsible for the content of every site I link to, I'd never link to ANYTHING. It could change at any moment -- what if it becomes child porn? To hold people responsible for the content of the sites they link to would fundamentally destroy the web. Nobody would link to anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your point is valid but irrelevant.
Irrelevant to the story, perhaps. But I was responding to a user comment, which claimed that we should all be responsible for the content we link to. Clearly, that's not feasible, as it would destroy the web.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You can be responsible for the content you link to by being accountable to your government (yeah, I'm no fan either, but there they are) if you violate a law. If you point people to a site where they can hook up with other men who like diddling kiddies and providing a link like that is illegal in your country, then I think it's reasonable for LiveJournal to say that they'll close your account if they're required to under those circumstances and that they'll probably provide your identity to your government
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the legal system isn't actually blind, they do actually look at context. If your link is surrounded by text that says stuff like "My wife and I just had our baby and we found the cutest site! Check it out at www.cutebabies.com. Be sure to check out page 3 where you can find pictures of our little Jessica-Amber -- it's under the Oh-no-she-didn't! category!", then I bet the judge, hell even the cops will probably think "WTF? Does this guy know what's on that site?" and LJ will simply ask you to rem
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The way I got booted? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyhow, now that we've established that ToS violations can occur for stupid things, have you never heard of trolls? Apparently, all one needs to do is get someone to link to some site they control
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
EvilKenny72: Hey Sheryl69, I made a cool site, link to it in your blog!
Sheryl69: Ok strange person, I like friends!
EvilKenny72 changes his site to an illegal movie download site
LiveJournal: Sheryl69, we have complaints that you are providing a link to an illegal download site. If you don't remove the link immediately your account will be terminated. Thank you for using LiveJournal.
Sheryl69: OMG! How did that h
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
EvilKenny72: I Russian, hah hah good lucks with your prosecutions Yankie.
Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
LJ will let you post most anything you want. I saw someone post a TOS violation because a guy had a user-pic of masturbating with a barbie doll. LJ didn't ban him because it wasn't his default icon.
LJ and SixApart came under fire specifically because of journals that had varying levels of content in regards to sex with children. LJ is owned and operated within the US and has to operate in conjunction with US law. LJ admitted they over-reacted initially and deleted some communities they shouldn't have. They reinstanted said communities.
This new policy really is only regards to illegal content, which LJ very losely regulates. There are many pirate communities on LJ, and LJ doesn't care about that. People discuss gangs, illegal drugs, and all kinds of crazy stuff. But when it comes to pedophilia, they have to cover their bases or get in big trouble with the government. When LJ said you couldn't post fan-fic anymore that featured sex and children, people got upset and started linking to it instead. If I owned Six Apart, I'd have the same policy simply to cover my ass.
If you don't like it, blog somewhere else. Quite frankly, if they go elsewhere, LJ is better off for it. Let someone else deal with the legal problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now we know why Slashdot doesn't allow photos in user pages. Seriously though, what type of message is that supposed to send? Freedom of expression is a great thing, but who is this person trying to impress? Is it a vague demonstration of independence of thought, an obsure political statement or just an attempt to get attention? Scratch the surface and you'll find out its a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Who else would be responsible? (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh huh... (Score:2)
The real wonder is how Slashdot hasn't hired them yet.
-Bill
Slashdot (Score:2)
So? (Score:2)
Re:Big deal? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Big deal? (Score:4, Informative)
From the abuse page [nearlyfreespeech.net] of their site:
If you are aware of criminal activity, your first step should always be to contact the appropriate law enforcement agency. Only the police can enforce the law.
If you are a law enforcement official working on a criminal investigation and you need our assistance, please contact abuse@NearlyFreeSpeech.NET. We scrupulously follow all US laws.
So that we can comply with our Privacy Policy, we will need a viable subpoena. You can contact us in advance to discuss the information you will need, which can help minimize delay and tailor the scope of the subpoena. However, the final subpoena will need to be executed before we can turn over any information about our members.
We are not the police, nor are we in any way qualified to investigate or fight crime. Therefore, it is not appropriate to send accusations of illegal activity directly to us, and such accusations will generally have to be discarded. You must contact the appropriate law enforcement office. Then, they can contact us if appropriate.
A NearlyFreeSpeech.NET member site has content that is illegal in my country (not the United States).
As above, your first action if you are aware of criminal activity should be to contact the appropriate law enforcement agency.
If you are a law enforcement official from a country other than the United States, please contact us at abuse@NearlyFreeSpeech.NET. If the crime you are investigating would also be illegal in the United States, we reserve the right to voluntarily cooperate. In such cases, you will need to obtain the equivalent of a subpoena for your jurisdiction, and we may choose to voluntarily comply, but all situations are handled on a case-by-case basis.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
3) Get a new blog site; it's not like there aren't a billion floating around or anything.
Am I missing something?
Yes, although you may not agree to its importance (but you'd be at odds with the people who actually use LJ and are at the heart of this issue). It's not as simple as switching from coke to pepsi; people who use LJ for extended periods of time often develop substantial roots, real-life as well as online, with peers on the site (as well as having a lot of legacy content that's difficult to copy over to a new blog, intact). Although the metaphor is too melodramatic for my taste, it's a little closer to a m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. That's how it starts.
We just wanted a widget to check links. A wee little WIDGET!!
Then it turned out it needed an enterprise level database engine behind it for efficiency and security. (Just the sort of feature creep IT departments love most.)
I suppose the next step is that once this massive database is checking links... well it only makes sense to harvest the data for advertising trends, pagerank, and so forth and try to make some money off it...
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean I'm responsible for the baby dieing in the tub, she was alive when I put her in there.
I don't understand how that bizarre metaphor got modded up as insightful. (Note, it got modded back down to flamebait while I was writing this, thank heavens.)
If I'm understanding the situation (having not used livejournal in a couple of years now), a better (though still imperfect) metaphor would be the curator of a small library of up to several thousand books, not simply having to check the books when they're purchased, but also having to go through all the stacks regularly to make sure rogue publisher
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)