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.

3 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. Re:None of which... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Someone who's overly friendly and goes out of his way to be helpful without asking for anything in return is suspicious.
    I don't know where this author is from, but I was raised with the expectation that this is normal behavior.
  2. Re:None of which... by Skreems · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just for the sake of irony, I submitted a "terms of service violation" complaint against the Warriors of Innocence blog. I recommend anyone else who's pissed at this behavior do the same. They're hate-mongering enough that there's a chance it'll do something. And damn, would it be funny.

    --
    Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
    The Urban Hippie
  3. Re:None of which... by montyzooooma · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Once a social networking website becomes popular it ceases to be cool and people move onto the next one. Buying a social networking site, like Murdoch did, is a losers game. Better to apply the catfood brands principle and set up successive sites so that as each previous website loses favour you have two others ready for people to move to.
    (catfood brands theory - if you have 2 companies making 1 brand of catfood each with about 50% market share, it makes sense to launch another brand rather than trying to promote your existing brand. So now you have 2 companies, one with 2 brands and 1 with 1 brand. The newly launched brand will take away sales from both existing brands but with the company with 2 brands benefiting overall. Until, obviously, the second company launches 2 new brands. And so on.)