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. None of which... by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    changes the fact that they're acting like clueless noobs.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  2. Be that as it may... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    After all, who will learn from their example if no one makes an example of them?

  3. Re:No right to protection from stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is just a bizarre, backwards argument.

    Of course they are "rights."

    You say we "don't have any" rights when at K-Mart? This is false on its face, and anyone can see it. If you walk into K-Mart they have no right to bind and gag you, nor to handcuff you and throw darts at you for entertainment, nor to forcefully take a blood sample.

    Sure, they can legally ask you to leave when you enter wearing a t-shirt which they dislike -- but that doesn't make them ethically correct in doing so.

    Your redefinition of "rights" to include only major human/civil rights, encoded in law as actions the government may not take against individuals, is mere wordplay -- whose effect is to semantically limit those rights you'll permit people to demand for themselves. When we demand certain rights, it does not matter whether the entity infringing upon those rights is the government or not. They are rights by dint of their infringement being unethical.