OT: New Definition of Hyperlinks, SPAM

[dmcowen674]

After a nice day yesterday except for the passing of a dear Member's brother, I woke up this morning to find some guy over at BroadBand Reports has decided that a link to a website is SPAM and he removed my signature that simply had DSLModemsDirect.com. No warning, no discusssion, just smacked the hammer down.

4h43m : 2003-02-11 02:24:54 : From RadioDoc block, delete-ALL, delete-this
Your signature advertising a commercial site is against site rules and has been removed. We do not allow spamming via signature line (or any other way for that matter).
reply to this

My reply:

I had asked when I signed up and was told that is OK. I even had assistance from 2 different Forum Mods in getting going because I was having a hard time posting because I signed up just after Justin installed some kind of points system that prevented me from posting anything.

Spam is a completely different legal issue of soliciting people without their asking by sending E-mails or Instant Messages without them clicking or actively doing something. I do not see where having a link to a Website falls under the Category of spam. If someone sees something they may be interested in and actively clicks to see what that is that is certainly a whole different picture and far from being Spam.

I believe killing a link on the Internet is as big of an issue as SBC is now trying to own all static Frames on Websites on the Internet because some idiot that has a job in Washington DC that they shouldn?t have and makes a decision they have no business making grants someone at SBC a Patent they have no business getting a Patent for.


Edit: OK, I took the word "legal" out of the Title of the thread as that may have bit over the top but fact remains that someone has re-written the definitions of the words Hyperlink and SPAM.

 

[dmcowen674]

I'm dissapointed. I posted this over in the actual Off Topic first without realizing it. The replies have been they are perfectly fine with censoring web links. Killing the very heart of the Internet. Since when is a LINK considered SPAM. There clearly is a difference. One you get in your E-mail box or popping up on your browser without asking to see it and the other you actively click on it to see it. A clear Black and White line.

I didn't even feel this way when under attack, I feel like just turning the Computer OFF today.

 

[dmcowen674]

Forum Mod

Joined 07-11-2001
Location: Key Largo, FL
BellSouth
Host of:
Voice over IP, BellSouth, General Distributed Computing, Team Discovery, FAQ Owners chat,
(topic offline) Anyone know Justin, Legal issue here at BBR

System message: moderator action (KeysCapt)
--------------------------------
This entire topic was removed, either temporarily, or permanently.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well I posted this very same post in the SETI@Home forum at BBR and it was immediatley killed as you can see above.

The Internet as we knew it or going to be known and held in high promise is dead.

 

[Robor]

I agree with you David and not just because you're a great forum member. A link is not spam, it's advertising. For that matter, most of our sigs contain links that are advertising of some form or another. I guess what they're saying is it's okay to advertise as long as you don't profit?

 

[ProviaFan]

Well, first off, this isn't exactly a legal issue, but more of a jackass site administrator issue. I am going to guess that it's mainly because you're a member of an opposing team that he decided to give you trouble.

Now, does the site have an official rules list? You did have the moderators' approval of your sig, but did you read the rules (I assume you did, and knowing what little I know about you, I think that you probably followed them)? I'd be sure to Rightclick > Save As... a copy right now, if they even exist, before he goes in there and changes it, making you an offender of an "after the fact" law (what's the Latin term for that so I can sound professional? ;-).

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Forum Mod

Joined 07-11-2001
Location: Key Largo, FL
BellSouth
Host of:
Voice over IP, BellSouth, General Distributed Computing, Team Discovery, FAQ Owners chat,
(topic offline) Anyone know Justin, Legal issue here at BBR

System message: moderator action (KeysCapt)
--------------------------------
This entire topic was removed, either temporarily, or permanently.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well I posted this very same post in the SETI@Home forum at BBR and it was immediatley killed as you can see above.

The Internet as we knew it or going to be known and held in high promise is dead.

Bah, don't let it get you down. We've gone through mod problems over here as well. One thing we need to remember is it's their website and the admins/mods are entrusted to run it as they see fit, be it right or wrong.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: jliechty
Well, first off, this isn't exactly a legal issue, but more of a jackass site administrator issue. I am going to guess that it's mainly because you're a member of an opposing team that he decided to give you trouble.

Now, does the site have an official rules list? You did have the moderators' approval of your sig, but did you read the rules (I assume you did, and knowing what little I know about you, I think that you probably followed them)? I'd be sure to Rightclick > Save As... a copy right now, if they even exist, before he goes in there and changes it, making you an offender of an "after the fact" law (what's the Latin term for that so I can sound professional? ;-).

I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that David is a member of TeAm Anandtech.

Isn't the Latin term something like "ex post facto" or something?

 

[ProviaFan]

Moderators will always be a hard-to-understand bunch, and it's important to remember, to avoid trouble, that even though they will most likely hold double (or even triple) standards (consider a site that in the off topic section, certain "elites" - and no offense to you, Dave, because you actually deserve your status - are allowed to slide by with language filter violations, posting of threads, and making insults that anyone else would be instantly banned for), you just have to follow the rules. It's sad, because the rules frequently aren't fair, but I guess that means the only thing you can do is leave if you don't agree. 🙁

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Robor
I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that David is a member of TeAm Anandtech.

Sad, but true. 🙁 Just remember that you're always welcome around here, Dave. 🙂

Isn't the Latin term something like "ex post facto" or something?

Yea, that's the term I was trying to think of.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jliechty
Well, first off, this isn't exactly a legal issue, but more of a jackass site administrator issue. I am going to guess that it's mainly because you're a member of an opposing team that he decided to give you trouble.

Now, does the site have an official rules list? You did have the moderators' approval of your sig, but did you read the rules (I assume you did, and knowing what little I know about you, I think that you probably followed them)? I'd be sure to Rightclick > Save As... a copy right now, if they even exist, before he goes in there and changes it, making you an offender of an "after the fact" law (what's the Latin term for that so I can sound professional? ;-).

I asked a lot of questions early on both here and at BBR and got help from 2 Mods at BBR.

Here is from their Terms Of Service:

>The dslreports.com Message Boards are designed to help readers obtain DSL ISP information discuss ways to make ISP choices.

I would say that is out the Window.

>dslreports.com will not be liable for any loss or damage caused by a reader's reliance on information obtained in our area, or in a >hyperlinked area. If you don't accept this responsibility for yourself, then you should not use dslreports.com.

Where does it say a Hyperlink (Weblink) is spam and not allowed?

>dslreports.com reserves the right to remove any postings for any or no reason. Users may not post third-party links which use >trademarks of dslreports.com or otherwise could cause confusion, wrongfully imply and endorsement of goods and services, or contain >defamatory, obscene or illegal material.

Where's the wrongfully imply? It doesn't say a link is illegal or SPAM.

They sure got the posting and censorship part down.


I don't care about all the Politics of it all, like I'm from opposing TeAm and all that.

The thing at issue here is that since when is a Internet Hyperlink considered SPAM itself??? When did that happen?
What International DMCA type thing determined this, did this happen while I was battling Gerogia and didn't see it?
I'll find out the specifics from the EFF in a little while.

 

[RaySun2Be]

David,
While I certainly agree that a link in a sig is NOT spam, I did find Links in Sigs FAQ over there.

I would certainly think that DSLModemsDirect would fall into the 2.4 category, and should be allowed.

I suspect that a person called Ameritech Tech (hmmmmm) may have complained based on his comments Here

And also by the post by LEV, the forum mod, right afterwards. Seems he has a big problem with Zoom. :|

The RadioDoc (another forum mod) post after that too. :|


What gets me is, it's ok for the question to be asked about purchasing modems, and others can respond with the same get it from Ebay, or get it here, but when David posts with a legitimate choice for the person posing the question, he gets slammed. :|

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: RaySun2Be
David,
While I certainly agree that a link in a sig is NOT spam, I did find Links in Sigs FAQ over there.

I would certainly think that DSLModemsDirect would fall into the 2.4 category, and should be allowed.

I suspect that a person called Ameritech Tech (hmmmmm) may have complained based on his comments Here


What gets me is, it's ok for the question to be asked about purchasing modems, and others can respond with the same get it from Ebay, or get it here, but when David posts with a legitimate choice for the person posing the question, he gets slammed. :|

They just added the second part of Number 4, that was not there. WTF is that????

4. Links to helpful sites that are in a business related to DSLR are acceptable above forums, in faqs or in posts as long as the link does not get re-posted or continually mentioned.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Guess you should remove the link to DSLReports on your site(I assume it is your site) in the "Useful Links" section 😉

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Guess you should remove the link to DSLReports on your site(I assume it is your site) in the "Useful Links" section 😉

CkG

Not only that, they removed my sig that had DSLModemsDirect.com but it's perfectly fine for the Phone Companies to post their websites like SBCDslstore.com?

That's selective prosecution. All of the Phone Companies should be forced to remove their WebLinks and not allowed to post their sites either.

Looks like a legal battle to me.

 

[RaySun2Be]

David,
I'm surprised you braved posting over in Off Topic about this. As you can probably tell, most of the posters there are juveniles that are too worried about "if a girl sits next to them meaning she likes them" to put much cognitive thought into something as heavy as free speech and personal rights.

I'm not sure if there are any legal grounds, but it doesn't seem right that BBR would allow links to Telco "stores" and Ebay purchase sites, and not allow mention of your site.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: RaySun2Be
David,
I'm surprised you braved posting over in Off Topic about this. As you can probably tell, most of the posters there are juveniles that are too worried about "if a girl sits next to them meaning she likes them" to put much cognitive thought into something as heavy as free speech and personal rights.

I'm not sure if there are any legal grounds, but it doesn't seem right that BBR would allow links to Telco "stores" and Ebay purchase sites, and not allow mention of your site.

It was actually accidental that I posted over in OT. It is apparent of why we are getting deeper in doo doo as more and more of these people with that kind of thinking is getting into Political Positions of Power.

Like I said over in OT. Discrimination is discrimination.

If they remove the Phone Company links to Webstores and Ebay like you said Dennis then I would be perfectly fine with their decision because it would be unilateral for all.

Plain and Simple.

EDIT: I will discuss with members of the EFF Board and see what options from here.

 

[Chipster22]

I don't think of a link in a sig line is spam either.

But I do think the owners of a website or forum have the right to run things the way they see fit. Even if it is stupid.

One website or forum with stupid rules cannot ruin the internet. Good intentioned laws trying to make the every site fair for everyone, might however, IMHO.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Chipster22
I don't think of a link in a sig line is spam either.

But I do think the owners of a website or forum have the right to run things the way they see fit. Even if it is stupid.

One website or forum with stupid rules cannot ruin the internet. Good intentioned laws trying to make the every site fair for everyone, might however, IMHO.

So you believe discrimination is OK? Wow

 

[Chipster22]

The word discrimination has a lot of nasty baggage with it, but discriminating is not ALWAYS wrong. (Racism is wrong because we are all people created by God.)

For instance a church should be allowed to "discriminate" when choosing a pastor. Would it be right to force a Christian congregation to hire an Islamic preacher, or the other way around?

I believe many of our rights stem from private property rights. The right of people to own land and property and pursue their own interests. A case could be made that individual websites fall under the category of property of those who created and operate them. Those with competeing views and interests can start their own websites.

How much do you want the government to be able to control what you can and cannot put on your own website?

[Edit] As I said, the idea that your link in your sig was spam is stupid. I just don't think we need laws and lawsuits to correct every stupidty. [/Edit]

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Chipster22
The word discrimination has a lot of nasty baggage with it, but discriminating is not ALWAYS wrong. (Racism is wrong because we are all people created by God.)

For instance a church should be allowed to "discriminate" when choosing a pastor. Would it be right to force a Christian congregation to hire an Islamic preacher, or the other way around?

I believe many of our rights stem from private property rights. The right of people to own land and property and pursue their own interests. A case could be made that individual websites fall under the category of property of those who created and operate them. Those with competeing views and interests can start their own websites.

How much do you want the government to be able to control what you can and cannot put on your own website?

[Edit] As I said, the idea that your link in your sig was spam is stupid. I just don't think we need laws and lawsuits to correct every stupidty. [/Edit]

Thank you. I was afraid of a post saying, Yes I think discrimination is perfectly fine.

>As I said, the idea that your link in your sig was spam is stupid.

Thank you again. People instantly trying to say it has somethig to do with me, it has nothing to with me.

>I just don't think we need laws and lawsuits to correct every stupidty.

Thank you again and of course I agree.
You're actually helping to make my point in all this that some people over there are making their own laws and selectively enforcing them as they go along.

 

[Chipster22]

You're actually helping to make my point in all this that some people over there are making their own laws and selectively enforcing them as they go along.

This is where we will probably part and have to call an "agreement to disagree" 🙂.

I draw a distinction between website policies or "laws" if you would like to call them that, and government enforced laws. The government has to be fair in enforceing its laws to ensure everyone's rights are maintained. Private people, institutions, websites, etc., need more freedom to run things as they see fit.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Chipster22

You're actually helping to make my point in all this that some people over there are making their own laws and selectively enforcing them as they go along.

This is where we will probably part and have to call an "agreement to disagree" 🙂.

I draw a distinction between website policies or "laws" if you would like to call them that, and government enforced laws. The government has to be fair in enforceing its laws to ensure everyone's rights are maintained. Private people, institutions, websites, etc., need more freedom to run things as they see fit.

I agree too but still doesn't sit well as far as equal access. I do not have equal access.

 

[blakeatwork]

I'm not going to repost what I said already, but it just appears like Dave seems to crying out "unfair!!" again...

SETI/Georgia was one thing, and was a completely frivolous lawsuit... now it seems you want to reprise the role of the State of Georgia. When BBR decides they will or will not allow advertising (and that's exactly what it is), you are obligated by the TOS to abide by those decisions, no matter how draconian they might seem. They can and will change their minds at any given time, it's their right as owners of a PRIVATE site.

Obviously, coming in here and posting is one thing, when this is his "home forum" I guess, but RaySun2Be, while the majority of posts in OT are generally asinine on nature.. it IS OT. Most people there will make the stupid comments (STFU retard as an example). Criticizing Dave for his actions is perfectly acceptable, and warranted in this matter. We all rally when the gov't does something stupid, but when one of our own does it, it's "selective prosecution" by "the MAN".

I just can't believe that the DC forum is just going to turn a blind eye on BBR's viewpoint, just because it's "Dave"...

 

[MemnochtheDevil]

Thank you. I was afraid of a post saying, Yes I think discrimination is perfectly fine.

>As I said, the idea that your link in your sig was spam is stupid.

Thank you again. People instantly trying to say it has somethig to do with me, it has nothing to with me.

>I just don't think we need laws and lawsuits to correct every stupidty.

Thank you again and of course I agree.
You're actually helping to make my point in all this that some people over there are making their own laws and selectively enforcing them as they go along.

But it's their private forum. The owner can make up the rules as he likes as long as he doesn't break any laws. He would be within his rights to say "I don't like Dave, so he can't continue to be a part of these forums". Just like he could refuse to allow you into his house.

As for spamming, I don't know what the setup is over at BBR with paid advertisers and isp representatives but I'd suspect they have a similar policy as AT. They don't want you to promote websites that you own or work for. If you want to advertise one of those you have to pay some kind of fee.

From the 6-7 post of yours I read you are recommending the zoom modems constantly. Not your only contribution to some threads, but others do seem to be commercials. You also have a link in your sig to your buisness site where you sell them... If I was a mod and saw that happen several times or had someone complain, I would remove it. Forums get revenue from advertising and don't allow members to acquire it for free.

The mods might be a bit sensitive but it tough lines have to be set or else help and hot deal threads would be nothing but companies advertising. I don't see a connection between your AT membership and the mods actions.

Comparing the actions of a single private board to the Nazi government is a bit much, IMHO. But I can see how past events would make you sensitive to constraints you feel are unjust...

 

[dmcowen674]

You're actually helping to make my point in all this that some people over there are making their own laws and selectively enforcing them as they go along.

>But it's their private forum. The owner can make up the rules as he likes as long as he doesn't break any laws. He would be within his >rights to say "I don't like Dave, so he can't continue to be a part of these forums". Just like he could refuse to allow you into his >house.

Fine, agreed

>As for spamming, I don't know what the setup is over at BBR with paid advertisers and isp representatives but I'd suspect they have a >similar policy as AT. They don't want you to promote websites that you own or work for. If you want to advertise one of those you >have to pay some kind of fee.

I E-mailed them many times asking about Paid advertising, no response.

>From the 6-7 post of yours I read you are recommending the zoom modems constantly. Not your only contribution to some threads, >but others do seem to be commercials. You also have a link in your sig to your buisness site where you sell them... If I was a mod and >saw that happen several times or had someone complain, I would remove it. Forums get revenue from advertising and don't allow >members to acquire it for free.

If you look at those Posts it is response to other Modems being promoted by either Phone Companies or others with links, I don't see them getting smacked down.

>The mods might be a bit sensitive but it tough lines have to be set or else help and hot deal threads would be nothing but companies >advertising. I don't see a connection between your AT membership and the mods actions.

I don't see a connection either, I didn't bring that up.

>Comparing the actions of a single private board to the Nazi government is a bit much, IMHO. But I can see how past events would >make you sensitive to constraints you feel are unjust...

Yes, probably some over the top and yes I am no doubt more sensitive to issues that appear Politically motivated. Sorry