Slashdot Mirror
AOL Blocks Links from LiveJournal
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."
Hopefully this is a temporary block giving them enough time to increase their bandwidth to the correct systems. And right now they are blocking everything so they can come up with a game plan.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
All I can say is begin the complaint process with AOL. Get a someone who'll file the proper paperwork and maybe file a lawsuit to get things put back the way they're supposed to be unless it's a genuine mistake on AOL.
:)
Also put up a message on your support lines with Steve Case's phone # to call him for support
Could you get around this using tinyurl? I'm not sure if it changes the HTTP_REFERRER or not.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Any else noticed that members.aol.com is sending an invalid content-type header?
I've seen iso8859 and text/iso8859-html, neither of which Firebird likes...
TODO: Something witty here...
Well not the whole AOL network, but the former mozilla division blocked links from slashdot (and still does), (Example). Any sites that cause major bandwidth use should be blocked, I'm sure some frequest slashdotters get the infamous Pink page of death.
Anytime there's an article that whines about deep linking, a few dozen people post replies saying that the company could use the referer header to block all such requests. Now that a company is actually doing it, it's suddenly a bad idea. Which is it -- good technical solution or bad censorship?
I should also point out that some sites automatically block slashdot.org referers as a matter of self protection.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
...on usage of the customer webspace? Does it have to be a full site, or can it be a storage place for images/files linked to from another site? Consumers are paying for the AOL service, and getting AOL webspace as part of the deal - are there limitations on its utilization?
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
Pretty soon AOL will have blocked all of it's lusers from the entire web.
That should AOL continue to block deep-linking (which they have the right to do so assuming that there is no contradictory clause in a user's contract) they should at least redirect users to a page explaining what is actually going on rather than leaving them to complain to LJ support.
When AOL needed help setting up their blogging software, who did they talk to? People like Dave Winer and other members of the net community.
So shouldn't there be some sort of Karma here where we, the blogging community, ostracize a bad player. They do it to spammers all the time, why not to the big guys. They'll eventually realize that it's not profitable to do so, and conform.
We could choose to disallow AOL urls into weblogs. We could prevent anybody with an AOL account having an RSS feed to a Blogger or LiveJournal. We could ban them from our conferences. Sounds like we're being assholes or "closed" by doing so, but I think it's important for people to check the bully to in the long-term enable the most openess possible.
Philosophistry
I use a program which allows me to change the referer header to appear to be from the same site I'm browsing. Not only does that protect my privacy but it works with the vast majority of sites that clamp down on content linking / bandwidth stealing. Sometimes simply removing the referer will kick you back out to an index page, which is a pain.
Unfortunately, killing the referer header breaks alot of sites which are blocking image pointing. We (KeenSpace) just put in header checking. We do it so that if a request for an image isn't from a webpage we host (eazy stuff to do), it's 404'ed.
We cut our bandwith by 50% that way.
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
AOL invented blanket blocking. I'm blocked from their SMTP server, and I've heard several different justifications for it.
I suspect that they are like SCO, in that no one with any self respect or knowledge will work for them. The first time I complained about being blocked, they replied that no one there knew how to allow a server on a "dynamic" subnet. (Dynamic my shiny metal ass.) Later, I heard that no one knew how to allow one ip address while blocking the rest of the subnet. As a result, I'm being accused of the half a billion pieces of spam my ISP's other customers send to AOL.
Let's hope that broadband finally kills those bastards off. I hope their stock falls so much in value that they start using outstanding shares as toilet paper. (I'd pay to use it as toilet paper, but they want a lot more than it's worth...)
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Cheapasses is right. You get what you pay for, and if you're paying for impossible things, you should beware the catch. There is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth, or unlimited space...merely limits that you haven't hit yet.
A t1 line is still over $700 per month, so burstable bandwidth starts at more than $2 per gigabyte. People who are on better pipes pay way less, of course, but then again they need to maintain them, and technicians start at about $25 per hour. Servers need to be powered, backed up and maintained to prevent hackattacks. So when somebody offers you unlimited bandwidth, unlimited space, unlimited email with 24x7 support for a pretty number like $7.77 or $5.55 or whatever, they're basically lying to you.
Check your AUP. Somewhere in there you'll find a line saying that your unlimited bandwidth can be terminated at any time if you use too much of it. Unlimited really means "We're not telling you the limits. But you'll know when you hit them." Generally because your site takes off. You get popular, people start laughing at your jokes and caring about your weblog. Then your provider cuts the cord. Sucks, don't it?
See, ISPs at all levels make money by overselling. They tell you you have a T1, when really it's fractional. They tell you you have 256 kbit upstream, then it maxes at 192. The most egregious example of this is the El-Cheapo webhost, an animal I despised so much that I started my own crummy service to combat it. If you have the know-how, and you have the time, I suggest you do the same. It can be a lot of fun and offsets the cost of big web projects. Just don't harbor any dreams of getting stinko rich.
I remember the first time I had a site get "overnight popular." It was a certain web comic that we begged to come on board. In about two weeks ge went from moving 2 gig a month to over 50. And because we small timers get the short end of the bandwidth stick, his bill was about $200. Not his bill FROM us, but the bill TO us from our host for just his transfer. We didn't mark it up. That's a lot of money when you're a hobbiest. Shit, that was as much as we paid for everybody else's bandwidth that month.
We have a policy of not touching people's sites or restricting tranfer, but if we hadn't known the guy (and known he was good for the money, which his new fans donated in droves, we even threw in $30), we probably would have had to use the "no contract" clause and take the site offline. Damned if I'm paying for somebody else's popularity...
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Am I the only one here that remembers AOL from back in the day? I'm talking 1994 here. Had it for a month, then they cancelled my account behind my back with no prior warning because i downloaded too much stuff. Back then, all they had was email. Now AOL is getting all restrictive again. This doesn't surprize me too much, but it'd be nice if they would keep the 'net a friendly place. I guess the current neophytes have prevented such action.
If you have paid for the space, and they put a block on, sue them..
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
Be careful, there are lots of paranoid log readers out there that investigate abnormal Googlebot traffic (the ip ranges it uses are quite well known).
I've never considered slashdot a blog. To me a blog is a personal journal/website akin to the journals at slashdot. I don't read those very often :)
My other car is first.
Really, I can't say I'm surprised that AOL would want to block image inline image traffic from blog sites, as that shit eats your bandwidth like nobody's business.
I "run" a (dormant) photo website on a commercial hosting service. I pay about twenty bucks a month for the diskspace and capped bandwidth - a reasonable amount, I think, which allows me to serve my users without garish adbanner detritus.
The ordinary site traffic is reasonably stable and keeps well below my bandwidth cap, but parasitic inline traffic comes on top of that, drawing close to redline.
I'm very seriously considering blocking livejournal and any other blog site I can think of, as their users frequently inline my images, eating a little of my bandwidth each time one of their blog pages are loaded. I have some car photos which about fifty retarded pimply teens have inlined on their pages for apparently decorative purposes.
I'm much too busy to go out and chase down every offender, but at the same time I've been reluctant to activate a simple block rule to get rid of the inline traffic once and for all. I guess I should follow AOL's example, eh?