Here's that screen capture of the Hyperlink Discussion with LJAbuse

[liz_marcs]

When yaochi suggested that I Screen Capture the actual LJ Support/Abuse conversation, I felt like hitting myself in the head.

Yes. A screen capture proves that I not only had the conversation, but that Alice of LJAbuse really said what she had said.

Read the previous entry so you can have the full context behind the discussion

Warning: Huuuuuuge image underneath the LJ Cut

Comments

[zarq.livejournal.com]

I'm one of those prolific links posters you mention, although I'm pretty sure my Technorati rank is far, far higher than 3,000. :)

Lord, that damned TOS needs to be fixed. I wish to hell they'd do so.

Even if the policy Alice is laying out were to be established in a formal TOS, then I suspect I'd still have a problem with it, and not just because it would mean I'd have to delete all of my posts under the "Article Archive" tag, either. At the risk of sounding like Captain Obvious, a link to material which is hosted elsewhere is by definition a link to material that is not hosted on livejournal. Legally, do they have a right to block us from linking to material they don't host? Does this mean I could be prevented from simply linking to news articles that someone has copyrighted? Where does it end?

They set up clear guidelines for their users. Until they do that, and place that guarantee Alice mentions into their formal terms of service policy (that we won't be penalized for an honest mistake,) then the entire deck is unfairly stacked in their favor. And it's not as if we've been given the least reason to trust them, either.

Thank you for keeping us updated about all the nuances of this issue. I know I haven't commented much, but I've been watching with quite a bit of interest.

grrr....

[zarq.livejournal.com]

They set up clear guidelines for their users.

Should read: "They need to provide clear guidelines for their users."

Sorry.

Re: grrr....

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

You were also someone I was thinking about when I posted my final response. I can't imagine you guys going through and checking all those links, not to mention that you guys are precisely the last people LJ wants to lose. I'm baffled as to why this policy is even being considered,

Honestly, I was pretty shocked that I ranked as high as I did. You, Fishanwit, and Twisted Chick as well as a few others on my FList obviously rank much, much higher.

Re: grrr....

[zarq.livejournal.com]

*nod* Such a policy would be completely moronic.

I'm convinced that any internet-based company that works with the public should err on the side of free speech and transparency wherever possible. LJ has failed on both counts several times now. From a business perspective, they need to hope this blows over, since those who use social media on a regular basis typically gravitate toward sites that allow them more freedom of expression, not less.

LJ's about to shoot themselves in the foot, and while it's sad that they can't see that, I'm even more baffled by their reasoning. It doesn't make any sense.

BTW, I actually do quickly skim through every link, but that's only because I want to make sure I can label a link SFW or NSFW for the benefit of my readers. Folks on my flist work for a wide variety of companies and a few work for government agencies. The last thing I want to do is get someone fired because I linked to naked bits and didn't say so. That's not to say I haven't screwed up before. Rotating ads can surprise me. :)

I don't read everything I post, though. It would be impossible!! Half the time I only read an article thoroughly after someone posts a comment -- so I can answer coherently. :-)

Re: your ranking, you've been very, very widely linked thanks to your diligence and posts on Strikethrough I and II. I've seen links to your posts all over LJ, and even on a few news articles. So don't be surprised if your rank has gone through the roof lately. :)

I'd never bothered to check mine since I claimed my blog over there a couple of years ago. Checked it this afternoon and it's a little over 118,000 with an authority of 50. Only problem is... I have no idea what that means! Technorati's site doesn't explain what the numbers mean very well. Ah well. :D

Re: grrr....

[wyldraven.livejournal.com]

From the Technorati FAQs
What is Authority (http://support.technorati.com/faq/topic/71?replies=1)

[...] Technorati Authority is the number of blogs linking to a website in the last six months. The higher the number, the more Technorati Authority the blog has. [...]

Technorati Rank is calculated based on how far you are from the top. The blog with the hightest Technorati Authority is the #1 ranked blog. The smaller your Technorati Rank, the closer you are to the top. [...]

Re: grrr....

[zarq.livejournal.com]

Ah, thank you! Very enlightening. :)

[diachrony.livejournal.com]

Fabulous.

ARGH!

[eclipsed-sky.livejournal.com]

I understand your frustration, LJ is so frustrating at the moment. I had a request going about Self Harm and the rules about it. Anyway I had like 4 different people talking to me and no one giving me an answer.