Log in

No account? Create an account
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.
5th-Mar-2010 03:20 pm (UTC) - Re: *Growl*
"As far as I understand it, there's sites that'll give you cookies if you refer people to them."

"Cookie" may not be the best term for this because it has a very different technical meaning in the context of the Web. What these sites generally give you is money.
5th-Mar-2010 06:55 pm (UTC) - Re: *Growl*
Yeah, or vouchers, money off, credits, dates with supermodels. Goods. Discussing this with my wife, she held that LJ may have the right to do this, as we're on their servers. But that's only true if they put in their TOS that they will take a portion (in this case 100%) of your taking if you make money off your journal. Doing it without asking, behind our backs, is definitely not on.
5th-Mar-2010 07:52 pm (UTC) - Re: *Growl*
There's a lot of other comments on this post discussing the TOS aspects, if you're so inclined--people posting affiliate links and making money off of them is a gray area heavily shaded to black, and LJ making money is greenlighted throughout, so.
5th-Mar-2010 08:30 pm (UTC) - Re: *Growl*
I think that LJ changing user content, including the destinations of links, is just as much "a grey area shaded to black" from a TOS standpoint - but I don't think that that's really an interesting question. The TOS is not the standard, and especially not the only standard, by which these questions should be answered.
5th-Mar-2010 08:52 pm (UTC) - Re: *Growl*
I don't know if that's the case. The ToS doesn't say LJ won't or can't do it, so it doesn't forbid it. Additionally, because of the very perniciousness of the implementation, one could even argue that they're not even changing user content in a significant way. The TOS isn't there to restrict LJ's behavior, which is why it's not much of a standard to use. Unfortunately, the only real standard when it comes down to it is whether or not people will stay even if LJ does X or Y, and we know that in most instances for most people for when these issues come up, the answer is yes.
This page was loaded Apr 21st 2018, 9:25 pm GMT.