Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AOL Blocks Links from LiveJournal

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the clue-not-found dept.

Evan Martin writes "LiveJournal.com is an open-source weblog site with over a million users, some of whom use AOL. Last week, AOL began blocking all HTTP requests with "www.livejournal.com" Referer headers. This is a common practice by image hosting sites to prevent off-site linking of their images and 'bandwidth theft'. However, in AOL's case, they're blocking everything, not just images, effectively breaking all links to any AOL member's site--but only from LiveJournal. To be clear: nobody on LiveJournal can even make a link to any AOL member site without getting a '404 Not Found' error. We've also heard reports of the same thing happening on AOL properties (Netscape, Compuserve). This concerns us because we have to deal with the support requests: it worked in the past for our users, and it continues to work for other sites, so our users think it's our fault."

Martin continues: "We've tried to contact AOL three different ways, all without success. We've also told our users to contact their tech support. At one point, an AOL staffer pointed out that FTP access still worked (which is probably because FTP has no "Referrer" concept), and so, as an interim fix, we're rewriting all HTTP URLs to use FTP on the AOL properties where that works instead. This means that users can again host their images on the AOL webspace they're paying for, but more importantly, it means they can simply link to their webpage.

We wouldn't be so upset if they were simply blocking images. Bandwidth use is a valid concern, after all, and we even provide step-by-step instructions for people to configure their webservers to prevent image "theft". However, because they're blocking all access, including regular links, this looks like it's either a mistake, or something more insidious (the conspiracy theorists have pointed out that AOL has just launched their own competing weblog product, also based on "journals").

Although CI Host sued AOL recently for being blocked, we really don't want to do that. We still suspect that this was all just a mistake, and hopefully, by making this public, we'll manage to get their attention, since all our previous attempts have failed."

6 of 396 comments (clear)

  1. Will this be what kills the referer header? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's optional, so browsers don't need to send it. Mozilla/Firebird/etc (and Opera) can be easily modified to not send one, and the Google Toolbar could probably support blocking them, too (since IE isn't being updated). AOL is a big enough presence that this could have a significant impact on peoples' browsing.

  2. AOL and Blogs by zangdesign · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, you may want to investigate whether or not AOL has gone live with their blog offering ( article here). If so, it may be viewed as an intentional act.

    --
    To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
  3. Well played... by tempest303 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a really level-headed, well played move on LJ's part - primarily because they're following the universal principle of assuming stupidity before malice. ;)

    --
    The Free desktop that Just Works
  4. Why is it... by pongo000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...that people bend over backwards to accomodate companies with draconian policies like AOL? If I were running an ISP, the loss of a few customers because they suddenly discovered they could no longer send e-mail to AOL customers through no fault of my own would most likely be offset by new customers who understand that the earth does not revolve around AOL. So they're blocking incoming HTTP traffic based on referrer? Are there not more pressing problems to attend to rather than trying to please the AOL gods?

    I'm not saying AOL is in the right. I'm simply saying that AOL (and companies like them) should be made to lie in the bed they make for themselves. Only when AOL customers start to be inconvenienced by AOL's own policies (rather than third parties patching together "workarounds" in a misguided attempt to protect the integrity of AOL) will they realize what AOL is up to...

  5. Re:Wait a minute by isorox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My Libertarian side says AOL are free to do whatever the hell they want, it's their server. If you ask the AOL server for a page and it send you the goatse man, thats fine, thats their right. Vote with your wallet and dont buy their service.

    My more centrist side says this could be abusing a monopoly (or at least dominant position), OK they dont have a microsoft style monopoly, but they do have the monopoly over Joe Stupid.

    My cynical side says who gives a flying fuck

  6. Re:Wait a minute by danielsfca2 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Deep linking seems to be a totally different issue here. Your average AOL user who wants to place a link on their LiveJournal to "members.aol.com/aoluser" would derive little value from a link to "www.aol.com" or even "members.aol.com"!

    This is webspace that AOL gives its users as part of their paid service. When you pay for webspace, the general idea is that it supports these things called hyperlinks. It stands to reason that you or anyone else should be allowed to link to your website from any other website. Any deviation from this traditional behavior should be documented in their terms of service, and is very shortsighted and/or stupid, as it threatens the very nature of the WWW, much like restrictions/penalties on linking to sites that are deemed undesirable.