Subject:
|
Re: When is a website "independent" and when is it "part of"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Oct 2000 04:45:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
625 times
|
| |
|
|
G'day Mike,
I've already posted my personal points on this issue:
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8118
but I'll reinforce them for my part...
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
>
> BUT - if I make a post and include a link to www.isecretlyhatetodd.com and
> even go so far as to invite people over, I should be held accountable ToS-wise
> for whatever is there - because not only am I providing a link to the site (as
> much as one can with text) I am inviting the community here to come over.
Why should the ToS of this site be relevant to off-site content?
If the message posting the link (exluding the link itself) abides
by the ToS of this site and is on-topic for the group in which
it was posted, then there should be no wrong with it. If the
content of the site, however disagreeable to some, is related to
the topic group, then what's the problem?
> That's what was done in this post you mention. A link was provided, an
> invitation was extended. Perhaps the content alone shouldn't be ToS-able
> (perhaps, perhaps not) but I'd sure agree that it also doesn't fall into the
> category of "oh, but that's on a personal site, not on LUGNET - can't consider
> it at all" with respect to judging motives, actions, etc.
And one of my other points..., as I see it there are two people
to be doing any type of "judging". And that's the owners of this
site, T&S. They are free to choose whatever criterion for rending
decision they wish. Let's be clear, if someone has objectionable
material off-site but has stayed within the ToS, then there has been
no violation. But the admins are free to do whatever they please,
regardless of the ToS, and including the weighing of off-site
"evidence".
> Actions speak louder than words. Actions carried out on a website to which
> you invite someone that contradict words you post here can (and should, imo)
> be used to balance words posted here.
Here's where I may partially agree with you, but only because things
got very muddy in the recent incident. MM's original link post
(sorry to make this incident-specific) was standalone in my opinion.
Meaning at that point other than the rude comment, he had not made
a total mess yet. However, in the heated discussion that ensued
on LUGNET, he began to tie in content on his website. And due
to his circular shenanigans, what he was saying here and what
he had on his site were probably contradictory. Thus yes, that
content could rightly so be considered by the Admins to sort out
how to deal with the issue on LUGNET. But I still maintain that
the content does not fall under the ToS.
TV has me believing that every trial case involves trying to
marr the image of the opposing side. If someone is on trial
for a crime then only that crime can be considered. If they
do other generally unpleasant things, but not illegal, on the
side, then that is not on trial. It may have people forming
character portraits or something, but are not tried. So
if someone is violating the ToS here, and you want to decide
what to do, then use that external info as character reference.
But do not penalize under your site's ToS for content on someone
else's.
To LP's original post, I still believe there's a big difference
between putting the content on *this* site where people
will see it without a conscious decision to do so, and
putting a link to it on another site, where people have
to decide whether they wish to go see it. Whether it's
a "friendly" invite to what may be "unfriendly" content
or not, people still have to decide. They also have to
remember where they are, on the internet, and not everything
will agree with them. Almost the same as surfing channels
on TV :] My criterion are still: 1) a post within the
ToS, 2) relevant content on the destination site, and 3)
posted within the appropriate group.
KDJ
______________________________________
Kyle D. Jackson, LUGNETer #203, Canada
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
58 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
