liz_marcs | I Just Pinged LJ Regarding the Issue of Linking

Right now, an awful lot of people are saying LiveJournal will ToS your journal if you provide even a link to material LJAbuse would deem ToS-worthy (using, of course, LJ's invisible guidelines that we — the customers and content providers — have yet to see) as if you were hosting the content on the LiveJournal servers.

I'm not talking about displaying images that are hosted on another site (i.e., Photobucket or DeviantArt) using the <<img>> tag.

I'm talking about just providing a link to content or an image using the <<a href>> tag that LJ Abuse deems ToS-worthy.

See the response this user got when he/she asked that question.

Another LJ user asked the same questions and got the same response from an LJ/6A employee. (H/t to

wesleysgirl for the link.)

Note that this new off-site linking stance is in direct violation of LJ's own abuse policies.

I want to be clear: I'm not calling the OP a liar, but this response beggars belief as far as I'm concerned, especially since Web sites change all the time and it's not that hard to imagine a once-innocent link to, say to an article on SuicideGirls (warning link may be NWS), could suddenly become rife with problems.

So I decided to ask Support for myself.

Within seconds of me posting my request Support tagged it as private, so good luck seeing Request#: 797739 if you want to confirm that I did, in fact, do this.

I'll just have to give you the text of what I asked:

There is currently a rumor going around the user base that LJ/6A would delete or suspend a journal if the user links to a Web site or Web page that contains content that the Abuse Team deems as objectionable.

I'm not talking about displaying an objectionable image hosted on, say Photobucket, and linked using the "img" tag.

I'm talking about linking to a site or an image using the "a href" tag.

So, for example, I post a link to a Web site( a link and nothing more) and say someone reports the entry to LJ Abuse.

If LJ Abuse deems that I have, indeed, linked to material that would otherwise get me ToS'd if LJ servers were hosting it, would my account be suspended/deleted because I merely posted a link to another Website?

Thank you for your prompt response on this matter.

As soon as I get a response, I will post it here.

Either that, or LJ is going to ToS me for posting a link to SuicideGirls.

Screw it. If this journal disappears, that's a pretty much solid answer, don't you think?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

but the link isn't content. it would be like putting up a picture of a brown paper bag, with a note next to it that said "behind this brown paper bag is a drawing of two seven year olds having sex."

there would be no objectionable material, because all you'd actually be able to see would be the brown paper bag, and the factual statement of such a drawing existing, in and of itself, is not graphic and therefore not impermissible content.

Ahhh, thank you. That's what I was thinking, but you put it better than I did.

The thing is, LJ during its various "clarification" posts have said that they'd only act on content that's physically on their servers and they pointed to this very link to show they were telling the truth.

When it came out that at least one of the artists was serving the image from DeviantArt, the stance changed from "on our servers and if you can see it on LJ even if it's hosted elsewhere." From there, it's escalated from "on our servers, if you can see it on LJ even if it's hosted elsewhere, and any link even though you can see it/read it on LJ."

Plus, I don't know of any massive site like LJ policing for links to offsite material. Granted there's room for abuse there (i.e., linking to child porn sites, etc.), but LJ has already shown that they're not actually interested in dealing with that. They're interested in removing material that LJAbuse deems "objectionable" without actually telling the membership what is objectionable and actionable in LJ's eyes.

yeah, their "clarifications" basically seem to be an exercise in "whoops, we didn't think of that one." and as my boyfriend (who thinks fandom is weird, slash is weirder, and harry potter slash is bizarre - and yet whose reaction when i explained that someone got banned from livejournal for a drawing of a fictional supposedly underaged character was "that's ridiculous!") pointed out, most sites actively hosting such content are not being shut down.

the clarifications are also incredibly frustrating in their inconsistency. you have to have a reason for these policies. if it's "we can't host the material," fine. but then linking can't be a problem. if it's "we can't encourage the behavior represented in the material," ok, but then we're going to have to sort out what constitutes encouragement. it's like they're just plucking reasons out of thin air. but i'm sure i'm preaching to the choir here.

interestingly, when i mentioned this casually it turned out that the boyfriend had already seen the news coverage, which maybe says something useful. on the other hand, he didn't really know what the issues were. but he's naturally a little spacey, so that may not be meaningful :).

(if you're interested, i've made a couple of posts on my journal recently on the subject of obscenity that sort of relate to my reply to [Bad username or site: nidoking / @ livejournal.com], although i feel kind of absurd pimping myself :))

The question is, if you click on the paper bag, will you see what's behind it?

This is like saying that it should be legal to post instructions for making explosive devices, because the instructions themselves can't hurt anyone. Perhaps not... but people who find the instructions can make the bomb, just as anyone who finds your link can get to the objectionable content. Livejournal doesn't even want to host links to objectionable content.

This is like saying that it should be legal to post instructions for making explosive devices, because the instructions themselves can't hurt anyone.

I disagree. It's not like that at all.

What it *is* like ... is POSTING A LINK to a site that has instructions for making explosive devices.

So... why are you posting that link? What's the context?

Nice phrasing.

I was using YOUR example. *I* am not posting any such links, nor do I have any interest in doing so. Just to be clear.

Does the context matter? So far, in their responses on this issue, LJ has not indicated that context is important to them, merely the presence of a link to something they find objectionable.

It could very well be posted by someone horrified at the fact that there is a site on the web that instructs on making these devices. Maybe they're making an f'locked post and trust no one who is on that reading list is in any way inclined to make harmful explosive devices, but they include the link so others can see for themselves that the site does indeed exist and they're not making it up.

Still, that may well be irrelevant to LJ's decision-making process. They have said f'locking makes no difference and have not yet indicated an interest in context.

in most instances, it is legal to post instructions for making explosive devices, precisely because the instructions themselves can't hurt anyone. it only becomes illegal if the instructions are posted with the specific intent of their being used to cause harm.

Like I said... what's the context?

what's the context of what? the point is that a link to anything is contentless, and unless i add a context around the link that suggests that the person following it should consider it an instruction to some kind of illegal action, it continues to be contentless. so unless i link to, say, a piece of art portraying minors in a sexual situation with a note that says, "hey, check this out, it should give you some ideas about what to do with your saturday," the link doesn't pose a problem. at least not from the perspective of any law or service provider other than, apparently, LJ.

to go back to the paper bag analogy - the fact that you can remove the paper bag and see what's behind it should be, based on lj's previous statements, fine unless in the process of seeing what's behind it i somehow move that content onto lj's servers. which would be a little absurd.

(sorry if this is getting a little muddled.)

I Just Pinged LJ Regarding the Issue of Linking

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject