?

Log in

No Opt In, No Ads
Fueling the resistance
Hijacking affiliate links 
4th-Mar-2010 02:32 pm - Hijacking affiliate links
Skittish Eclipse
I've been given a heads up that has done some excellent sleuthing and investigation into hijacked LJ affiliate links:

What is LJ doing to my links?
What is LJ doing to my links? Part 2
What is LJ doing to my links? Part 3

Expect this post to be update through the day as I find out more and come up with a good summary.

ETA: No good summary, but I feel like I should say code got taken down, etc etc, business as usual.
Comments 
6th-Mar-2010 02:56 am (UTC)
http://community.livejournal.com/no_lj_ads/87066.html?thread=2117658#t2117658

Sums it up for me.

It's our content, they say themselves they have no right to mess with it, they messed with it anyway, clearly violating their own TOS, so yeah, you could definitely win this case in court, if you wanted to.

The heck with the other parts of the TOS, the heck with affiliate money being made by a relatively small sub-set of LJers....all LJers, whether making money off their LJs directly or indirectly - or not - got their LJ content interfered with, changed, and rewritten, by LJ.

You can argue about how much anything was changed, but how about this, Your Honor, if it may please the Court: "I added links to my content myself. Those links are part of my content but in violation of their own TOS LJ rewrote those links to point to links of their own choosing that made money for them regardless of whether or not I made a dime off any of those links myself - which in my case, I didn't."

Hmmmm.

foxfirefey knows I'm just chomping at the bit for this one. LJ's overuse of and their hiding behind never-ending, ever-expanding chunks of legalese is infuriating, and in this case, literally indefensible.
6th-Mar-2010 03:21 am (UTC)
Well. I can't say LJ's hiding behind any chunks of legalese or anything, since no legalese from LJ has been put forth, although people are certainly discussing legalese in LJ's stead. All LJ's done is gone "whoopsie" and retracted. I don't think there'll be any legalese from them unless somebody sues, and I doubt that'll happen.
6th-Mar-2010 03:53 am (UTC)
By legalese I meant their TOS.
"unless somebody sues, and I doubt that'll happen"...Right. :) Oh and my Enter key just stopped working so forgive the formatting...
(no subject) - adnar_el - 2010-03-06 03:24 am (UTC)
6th-Mar-2010 03:27 am (UTC)
Well, this issue only came up yesterday and I'm not sure if the staff member (bluemeringue) that prepares the news updates had time to change course.

And really, this hasn't been that big of a blow up as far as LJ blow ups go--if it was, the birthdays wouldn't be more than the complaints.
(no subject) - adnar_el - 2010-03-06 04:14 am (UTC)
7th-Mar-2010 08:33 am (UTC)
Well, I've been pretty much an LJ bitching analysist since about 2006, so I've seen bunches of patterns of LJ being sneaky and it getting found out and the pitchforks being grabbed. This one isn't ranking too high--one reason might even have to do with some of the people who originally would have done so having decamped mostly to other places already. (Some people continually get upset and complain, but never really leave or stop complaining in news.) Like you, one action or another they found out undermined their trust.

Another reason it didn't get too has to do with how fast the issue was taken care of from when it first started hitting ground zero. People didn't have a whole weekend to work themselves up before they heard from staff and the code started getting remove--they didn't even really have a whole day. That helps prevent further flagration a lot.

The staff you're hearing from is staff that *does* care, and this wasn't their decision or fault. LJ can be so dysfunctional about the way they implement these things sometimes it seems, it's quite possible those staff members didn't even really know or realize it was going on until it blew up.
This page was loaded Jul 27th 2017, 6:44 am GMT.