Subject:
|
When is a website "independent" and when is it "part of"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Oct 2000 01:24:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
827 times
|
| |
|
|
Sorry for the malformed subject, it feels like it's 2 AM to me.
Something has been nagging at me about one aspect of the latest... I think I
want to recant some of my own words, and see if some other people do too. At
least a little. Maybe it's a small point, but it's 2 AM, how can I tell what's
important (I am trying to stay on UK time while i am over here for the weekend
since I fly back to the UK monday nite, so I should really be in bed already
even though it's only 9 PM eastern)?
A lot of us have said, over and over (with good reason and the best of
intent) "what one does on one's own site is separate from Lugnet". And to a
certain extent, in most cases, this seems true. It is not Lugnet's job to
police the entire internet (just as it's not the US role to be the world's
policeman, but I digress).
But, and bear with me here for a bit, is it seperable? Suppose as a thought
experiment that Lugnet allowed one to embed HTML in posts. It doesn't but
suppose it did. Now, if you look at the underlying structure of the rather
pitiful sites that I have responsibility for (bricksmiths.com,
MiltonTrainWorks.com, and my own totally disorganized, out of date and poorly
designed personal site at my.voyager.net/lar you would find a lot of
intertwining and blending. What looks like one site is really several. I use
space wherever I can find it to host images. So my voyager site has images
from several other sites (I have 2 or 3 semisecret places where I keep stuff).
My MTW site has images from voyager! And so on. I am not a big frames fan for
personal sites, but if you add what you can do with FRAMES to the mix you can
see that one apparent page can actually be an amagamation of a bunch of
different stuff.
So again, bear with me, if Lugnet allowed HTML in posts, and thus allowed an
amalgamation like I refer to above, the Lugnet ToS would (again, bear with me)
probably say that anything shown "on lugnet" no matter where sourced, would
have to conform to the ToS. Specifically because of the blending effect. If
you could embed an image from wherever, you'd have to make sure that image
wasn't in violation of Lugnet ToS. Same for text that was embedded (not
linked, that's impractical and most ToS explicitly disclaim any responsibility)
But it doesn't allow any such overt imbedding via HTML. So most people
say "well that is a very very clear line, what happens on other sites has no
bearing (Except for reputation) on Lugnet and a user's compliance". Most of
the time I agree.
But look at this post:
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=3842
It seems to me that, within the limits of the text only techology we use here
for posting, MM had gone pretty far to "embed" his site in his post, short of
replicating the whole thing in the post, that is. Should it be judged that way?
Despite that I am not sure that I actually agree with the argument I just
outlined that this site (based on the author's intent) should be evaluated as
part of Lugnet due to embedding, but I wanted to outline it for completeness.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
58 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
