+ Post New Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15
Blue Skies Thread, EduGeek & Unsuitable URLs in General; Somebody on another forum, who I believe is also on here, raised an interesting point that by having unnacceptable URLs ...
  1. #1

    Edu-IT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,875
    Thank Post
    393
    Thanked 581 Times in 532 Posts
    Rep Power
    173

    EduGeek & Unsuitable URLs

    Somebody on another forum, who I believe is also on here, raised an interesting point that by having unnacceptable URLs posted on the forum the site becomes responsible and is potentially then in breach of the law, depending on the content of the site being linked to. MSE also don't edit posts on their forum, and instead remove them, because by editing the posts they are therefore then responsible for all the messages posted.

    Is this the case? And if so, should we be posting unsuitable URLs so we can all check our local filtering?

  2. #2

    synaesthesia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    5,486
    Thank Post
    527
    Thanked 876 Times in 683 Posts
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    438
    Freedom of speech strikes again!

    It depends on how unacceptable they are if anything. I don't see the harm in it if said URL's are not there for the purpose intended by that site, and more importantly they are in a non-publicly accessible place. The forum administrators are not responsible for content posted as long as it's otherwise legal - i.e. you can show as many blue movie URLs as you like as long as they're not outside the laws regarding depravity etc.
    However you do raise an interesting point with it - I might have a word with some of the admins I moderate for elsewhere and ask for their POV. Obviously DosBox might like to comment here too

    Perhaps it might be wise to ensure said links are not clickable or otherwise posted in the good ol' fashioned method of www dot nastysitename dot com as another line of defence.

  3. #3

    Edu-IT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,875
    Thank Post
    393
    Thanked 581 Times in 532 Posts
    Rep Power
    173
    My second job is in a community moderation role and it was discussed at the end of last year on a distribution group that by editing posts you become responsible. I'm going to try and dig this out. It's only when you edit posts that you become responsible.

  4. #4
    SteveBentley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,415
    Thank Post
    116
    Thanked 261 Times in 187 Posts
    Rep Power
    71
    I think the argument is that if you edit *some* posts, then it could be inferred that anything which hasn't been edited must be endorsed (or at least approved of) by the site, whereas if you don't edit anything you can argue more effectively that posts are owned by and the responsibility of the poster.

    Not sure if that stands up in a court of law though!

  5. #5

    Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Fylde, Lancs, UK.
    Posts
    11,800
    Thank Post
    110
    Thanked 582 Times in 503 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    223
    Well I could cause some havoc with ShadyURL if you like.

    But on a serious note, we keep the diffs. So you can still go back to the original post and see all the edit(s). Just like a wiki page.

  6. #6

    Edu-IT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,875
    Thank Post
    393
    Thanked 581 Times in 532 Posts
    Rep Power
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveBentley View Post
    I think the argument is that if you edit *some* posts, then it could be inferred that anything which hasn't been edited must be endorsed (or at least approved of) by the site, whereas if you don't edit anything you can argue more effectively that posts are owned by and the responsibility of the poster.

    Not sure if that stands up in a court of law though!
    That's the one!

  7. #7

    Ric_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,582
    Thank Post
    107
    Thanked 761 Times in 592 Posts
    Rep Power
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Edu-IT View Post
    That's the one!
    But by the same token, removing some of the posts then means that you must endorse the ones that remain so surely you are still liable

  8. #8
    Arcath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    935
    Thank Post
    99
    Thanked 107 Times in 95 Posts
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Ric_ View Post
    But by the same token, removing some of the posts then means that you must endorse the ones that remain so surely you are still liable
    i think its more down to once you press save on the edit form your saying that "this post now meets the minimum level for content on our site" and if you leave the in-appropriate link in then your saying its allowed on the site.

    Also on a site this size it cant be expected for the mods to read every post and find every bad piece of content.

  9. #9

    Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Fylde, Lancs, UK.
    Posts
    11,800
    Thank Post
    110
    Thanked 582 Times in 503 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    223
    Slippery slope alert :P

  10. #10

    Edu-IT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,875
    Thank Post
    393
    Thanked 581 Times in 532 Posts
    Rep Power
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Ric_ View Post
    But by the same token, removing some of the posts then means that you must endorse the ones that remain so surely you are still liable
    Not really as you're only editing one reported post for example, you may not see the others so in which case until you start to edit those then they're not endorsed.

  11. #11

    ZeroHour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    5,574
    Thank Post
    869
    Thanked 1,293 Times in 786 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    436
    I wonder if we didnt edit and left the originals up and then just passed on users ips to the cops etc that would be better?
    I would doubt it would be seen as approved after an edit in the eyes of court as its still user generated content and still has not been made by the editor as well as the fact edits are logged. If youtube edits a comment on a video have they approved it implicitly then which becomes much more their comment then the users. Also if youtube edits a video to place an advert does that count as a edit and then its their responsibility for the video content? Thats even more controversial as they have directly profited from the edit too.
    I think these are relative non-issues due to the nature of user generated content, we are not responsible for it unless we fail to act when appropriate and I cant see how edits could be seen as approvals, it would cause a huge amount of problems big sites but yet they dont have the issue and they have better paid lawyers to look into it

  12. #12

    Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Fylde, Lancs, UK.
    Posts
    11,800
    Thank Post
    110
    Thanked 582 Times in 503 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    223
    As I said, as long as there is an audit trail I think it's a non-issue.

  13. #13
    Galway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,015
    Thank Post
    6
    Thanked 215 Times in 153 Posts
    Rep Power
    61
    No-one should be viewing anything in front of students anyway ... im not a supporter of a nanny state where everyone spoon feeds the people who cant think for themselves, and you have to accept some sort of responsibility for your actions.

    If someone posts content of unsuitable content, and someone see's it to the point of you being in trouble ... ITS YOUR FAULT for allowing it to happen. If you bring it in from the outside world then its your fault.

    In my opinion the whole darn internet should have a huge "use at your own risk" sign around it. And we can never make it 100% safe, and shouldnt be expected to.

    With planning and preperation, it can be close ... but please lets not turn this into a spoon feed the numpties exercise.

  14. #14
    mossj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    1,466
    Thank Post
    157
    Thanked 189 Times in 174 Posts
    Rep Power
    51
    The local newspaper had an issue like this:

    Took it to court: kperch: UGC ruling comfort for bloggers

  15. #15

    Edu-IT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,875
    Thank Post
    393
    Thanked 581 Times in 532 Posts
    Rep Power
    173
    4 therefore, publishers have no liability if posts are removed as soon as a complaint is received.
    So basically they're saying remove comments as soon as they're reported rather than edit them?

    I was not in any way questioning EduGeek; this was a more general question. Perhaps it was wrong to mention EduGeek however it was an example of where people often post URLs which could be questionable, and they do so for the purpose of protecting others.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Unsuitable Google Image - Removal Denied
    By docboggle in forum Internet Related/Filtering/Firewall
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 19th October 2009, 11:09 AM
  2. EduGeek & BETT
    By russdev in forum General EduGeek News/Announcements
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10th January 2006, 07:03 AM
  3. SST & Edugeek
    By russdev in forum General Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 4th November 2005, 06:27 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •