Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LiveJournal Says Users are Responsible for Content of Links

Posted by samzenpus on from the who's-to-blame dept.

Many of you might remember the previous story about LiveJournal erroneously deleting hundreds of users as suspected paedophiles, spurred on by pressure from the group, Warriors for innocence. Since then, they've been taking action against users hosting material on their servers that they believe to be illegal. Today, LiveJournal management have demonstrated a serious lack of understanding in how the internet works, declaring that users are responsible for the content of the webpages that they link to in their blog entries. A user points out the obvious flaw: "I get ToS'd because the link's been redirected to a page full o' porn, even though context clearly shows that when I originally put up the link that it didn't actually land on a page of porn?" One wonders how such a long-established blogging company can be so ignorant about the nature of the world wide web.

4 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. Upkeep by Joebert · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What do you mean I'm responsible for the baby dieing in the tub, she was alive when I put her in there.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  2. Re:Be that as it may... by bi_boy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    While it may not be government censorship, I don't see why we can't publicly decry these actions as idiotic.

    It's because we're not talking about Microsoft.

    --
    Chicken fried butter sticks? Do ... do you use a fork? - Black Mage, 8-Bit Theater
  3. Re:None of which... by Thexare+Blademoon · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Was your hometown smaller than 300 people by any chance?

  4. LJ will censor anything controversial by Brian+Ribbon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "Many of you might remember the previous story about LiveJournal erroneously deleting hundreds of users as suspected paedophiles, spurred on by pressure from the group, Warriors for innocence. Since then, they've been taking action against users hosting material on their servers that they believe to be illegal."


    They also "took action" against my journal, which was a legal pro-paedophile journal containing only political text, with links only to legal political sites and news articles. It was similar to my current blog. LJ told me that my journal was removed because it "sexualised children," which was bullshit, but was apparently the best excuse they could find for caving in to pressure from vigilantes.

    If you wish to host a legal but controversial blog, try InsaneJournal, GreatestJournal, or if you're prepared to pay for hosting and install the blog software, try NearlyFreeSpeech.Net
    --
    "To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four