I really get the feeling that they are now trying to cover ALL possible bases in order to keep from getting their asses taken to court, even things that are patently ridiculous.
One thing they did make clear in one of those posts was that a link to a site that did not have objectionable content when the link was posted but acquired it later would not necessarily get the linker suspended, but one would be told to remove the link. In short, benefit of the doubt, I reckon. The problem would be determining if it had changed, or not. So it's one of those things that sounds reasonable on paper, but when you actually start thinking about it, has lots of holes, but are they just not thinking about how the web changes (which is really hard to believe of a bunch of techies), orholes on purpose -- e.g., LJ is offering people with links who get reported for it the chance to claim 'they changed it!' and remove the link in order to avoid dealing with it? That is, I wonder if they're doing a wink, wink ... go ahead and link to stuff outside, it's not on our servers, if somebody reports you, we'll warn you and you can move it. Although really, if it's your OWN story (or art) one's linking to, that's a bit hard to argue. So OTOH, I find it hard to believe a bunch of *techies* haven't thought about how the web works, but OTOH, if this is shadow boxing in order to avoid hitting anybody, they're doing it REALLY badly.
As far as I know, they can't be held legally accountable for material on other websites as long as the person providing the link makes it clear the link contains objectionable material? The linker might, but they can't? But this is where things get really shady, and I'm a historian, not a lawyer.
no subject
One thing they did make clear in one of those posts was that a link to a site that did not have objectionable content when the link was posted but acquired it later would not necessarily get the linker suspended, but one would be told to remove the link. In short, benefit of the doubt, I reckon. The problem would be determining if it had changed, or not. So it's one of those things that sounds reasonable on paper, but when you actually start thinking about it, has lots of holes, but are they just not thinking about how the web changes (which is really hard to believe of a bunch of techies), orholes on purpose -- e.g., LJ is offering people with links who get reported for it the chance to claim 'they changed it!' and remove the link in order to avoid dealing with it? That is, I wonder if they're doing a wink, wink ... go ahead and link to stuff outside, it's not on our servers, if somebody reports you, we'll warn you and you can move it. Although really, if it's your OWN story (or art) one's linking to, that's a bit hard to argue. So OTOH, I find it hard to believe a bunch of *techies* haven't thought about how the web works, but OTOH, if this is shadow boxing in order to avoid hitting anybody, they're doing it REALLY badly.
As far as I know, they can't be held legally accountable for material on other websites as long as the person providing the link makes it clear the link contains objectionable material? The linker might, but they can't? But this is where things get really shady, and I'm a historian, not a lawyer.