I Just Pinged LJ Regarding the Issue of Linking

[liz_marcs]

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?

Comments

[ljcygnet.livejournal.com]

Likely, their intent is to stop people from going, "Oh, I can't post my porn? Fine, I'll put it on my personal web site and link to it."

Problem with that approach is that it isn't going to WORK. Because fen will promptly find ways to uphold the letter of the restriction while violating the spirit of it. They can do things like,

"Hey! I have a new Snarry picture! It's on my website, www.mysite.com, under the 'new content' tab." With no actual direct link to it, just a path to find it.

So Livejournal has to say you can't link to a page that links to a page with porn on it, or the fan posting smut wins that round ...

And I'm sure you can think of other ways to tell people how to find the porn without directly linking to it. Know what I mean?

At some point it could devolve into, "I drew a Snarry. You know where to find it ... e-mail me if you don't," being bannable. Or, "E-mail me if you want me to e-mail you my latest Snarry."

So either they have to get absolutely ridiculous about restricting any mention of smut whatsoever to prevent fans from passing it around or they have to turn a blind eye to fans who are making end runs around the rules.

Meanwhile, some poor newbie who doesn't know about the rules gets banned because she linked to a pic showing Harry Potter's wang and the purity police have a cow.

Leva Cygnet
leva@firefox.org

[bubble-blunder.livejournal.com]

It'll just turn into what high school was like if I mentioned to a teacher I had a headache. The typical response was, "Oh darn, I left my keys in the staff room. While I go get them can you make sure that no one gets into my top desk drawer where the bottle of tylenol is hiding."

So it'll basically be, "Oh, wow, I hope that no one from LJ/6A finds that new Snarry picture that I put up on my site under latest updates this morning. They might find it offensive."

Do they just not realize how ridiculous this is getting?

~Lisa

[ljcygnet.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I thought of about three or four more ways that fans, with a wink and a nod, could "not link to porn" while making it locatable.

"Oh, my Snarry is at

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<link [...] doesn't>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Yeah, I thought of about three or four more ways that fans, with a wink and a nod, could "not link to porn" while making it locatable.

"Oh, my Snarry is at <link that doesn't work>" ... nonworking link being encrypted one way or another, and the other members of the community have the key.

Links that go to password protected directories. DEAD easy to do.

And links to artwork itself that's actually encrypted with community members having the key.

Leva Cygnet
leva@firefox.org