If I say it a few more times, will it sink in? Probably not. But I will anyhow. A. Link. Is. Not. Content.
They are different things. So yes, there is a contradiction here. By policing links to off-site content, lj is policing off-site content, despite saying they won't. Because a link IS NOT CONTENT.
I can link you to anything you like. I can show you whatever you want. I am not creating content by providing a link! Content has a specific definition, and a link doesn't meet it. Content means something has been written, drawn, sung, spoken, created. A link is not content! A link points to content. Or heck, a link sometimes doesn't point to content! If I link you to google (www.google.com), does this comment now contain the entire internet? Content has information, or art, or opinion, or a description of somebody's day, or gossip, or content. A link has none of those things in and of itself, it only points to where they can be found. They are not the same. The link does not become what it points to! It points to content, it is not content in and of itself!
Instructions may tell you how to make a bomb, but instructions are not a bomb. They are different things. They are defined differently, in the dictionary AND by the law.
How many different ways can I say this? If you are banning somebody based on what they have linked to, you are not banning them based on their content. You are not banning based on what they have created, done, or said. Because the link creates, does, and says nothing.
AND this makes a total travesty of the way lj insists that they're only doing this for legal reasons, because they cannot, legally, have illegal content on their servers. LJ IS LYING, and they have proved this outright by banning links to objectionable content! So it IS a contradiction, a great big heaping one! If I link to something objectionable, that thing is NOT on lj's servers in any way, shape, or form, and lj has ZERO legal responsibility for it. Legal responsibility for sever content does not extend to links. Because, guess what? Links are not content!
no subject
A LINK IS NOT CONTENT.
If I say it a few more times, will it sink in? Probably not. But I will anyhow. A. Link. Is. Not. Content.
They are different things. So yes, there is a contradiction here. By policing links to off-site content, lj is policing off-site content, despite saying they won't. Because a link IS NOT CONTENT.
I can link you to anything you like. I can show you whatever you want. I am not creating content by providing a link! Content has a specific definition, and a link doesn't meet it. Content means something has been written, drawn, sung, spoken, created. A link is not content! A link points to content. Or heck, a link sometimes doesn't point to content! If I link you to google (www.google.com), does this comment now contain the entire internet? Content has information, or art, or opinion, or a description of somebody's day, or gossip, or content. A link has none of those things in and of itself, it only points to where they can be found. They are not the same. The link does not become what it points to! It points to content, it is not content in and of itself!
Instructions may tell you how to make a bomb, but instructions are not a bomb. They are different things. They are defined differently, in the dictionary AND by the law.
How many different ways can I say this? If you are banning somebody based on what they have linked to, you are not banning them based on their content. You are not banning based on what they have created, done, or said. Because the link creates, does, and says nothing.
AND this makes a total travesty of the way lj insists that they're only doing this for legal reasons, because they cannot, legally, have illegal content on their servers. LJ IS LYING, and they have proved this outright by banning links to objectionable content! So it IS a contradiction, a great big heaping one! If I link to something objectionable, that thing is NOT on lj's servers in any way, shape, or form, and lj has ZERO legal responsibility for it. Legal responsibility for sever content does not extend to links. Because, guess what? Links are not content!