The secret is out and it's not pretty

[altivo]

Apparently LiveJournal has been using custom JavaScript code to modify some links on user pages dynamically when they are clicked. The action replaces the "affiliate ID" value in the link with another value. This doesn't affect all such links, but only those on a specific list of providers, including, apparently Amazon and EBay. The intent of this

Comments

[kint]

I think there was enough general outrage that there already pulling it. I think.

[altivo]

They say they're trying to do something about it. They don't admit it's happening, they don't apologize, they don't explain. This appears to be yet another LJ secret screwup that no one was supposed to notice.

The fact that there was a console command to at least partially disable the thing shows that it was intentionally coordinated for some nefarious purpose.

I don't use affiliate links, so I have no direct damages to claim, but I'm still furious at the sly manner in which this was done and the attempt to avoid dealing with it openly. All they need is for Amazon and EBay or other similar large corporations to come after them for fraud (because that's what this is) and they'll collapse like a punctured balloon.

[nekura_ca]

Just to clearify, the console command just sets a flag that has been around since 2005. And the flag seems to seems to have something to do with stats. And the bad affiliate codes are being added to the links on the outboundlink.net servers, not by LJ. It is possible LJ were looking for stats on what people were linking to, and just picked the wrong service to work with. I would wait for more information before joining the lynch mob.

[schnee]

It is possible LJ were looking for stats on what people were linking to, and just picked the wrong service to work with. I would wait for more information before joining the lynch mob.

That's my impression, too. They fell for a shady business of questionable legality, and ended up getting burned.

Hopefully they'll learn something from it, though. (Although I do admit that it's not easy to say that while keeping a straight face...)

[lobowolf]

I'm surprised LJ management is stupid enough to pull something like that. Don't they know that their clientele is riddled with geeks that could take their system apart ten times over? Plus it's just a scumbaggy thing to do. :/ Never bullsh*t people that are smarter than your company!

[altivo]

Alas, LJ management has proven time and time again that it hasn't a clue about what kind of users it is dealing with.

[lobowolf]

No, obviously they do not. They should know that if they try to pull anything like that, it won't take more than 10 minutes before somebody spots it and posts it to the whole community (for which I'm thankful).

[altivo]

Actually I suspect this was more like a couple of weeks, but yes.

The original intent may have been acceptable, if it did not include stealing affiliate credit from those who made links with affiliate codes already in them. However, even in that case, I believe this is a practice that should in good ethics have been announced clearly BEFORE it was implemented, and options to opt out of it should also have been made clear. (Even if opting out meant closing down one's LJ account, or never posting links to it.)

We have to hold corporate feet to the flames all the time it seems in order to make them behave responsibly and ethically.

[songdogmi]

I clicked some links in shatterstripes's LJ posts in the last few minutes. They worked as one would expect. But that does not necessarily contradict what you're saying; the function may have been disabled once it became known that users noticed.

[altivo]

The links appear to work, but they change the affiliate ID so the credit for the link goes to someone else. In most cases, you still arrive at the same site.

Also, if you have a paid account and are logged in, the behavior is different from what happens if you have a free account or are not logged in.

Even if they disabled the thing, it doesn't excuse the fact that it was instituted on the sly and apparently some time ago.

[songdogmi]

According to this post, the "feature" was geared to work with Internet Explorer, and only sometimes worked on Firefox. I use Firefox mostly.

The post linked to above summarizes things and pulls together several other links; seems useful for an overview (if anyone still needs one).

[avon_deer]

It seems that LJ have now released a statement more or less saying it was an anomoly caused by an update.

http://hgryphon.livejournal.com/934946.html?style=mine

The owner of that journal complains that people were jumping the gun and posting that warning (you saw one on my journal the other night) without first checking their facts.

I however make no appologies for automatically assuming that corporations (such as SUP) are inherantly evil. Becauase most of the time, I am correct.

[schnee]

I'm not convinced by that user's reasoning, myself. What has happened is the following:

1. Something bad (i.e., something that negatively affects users) happens.
2. There's a huge uproar.
3. LJ representatives say it was all a mistake that will get rectified soon.

From the last part, he then concludes that the missing first piece is, indeed,

1. LJ makes a mistake.

This is consistent with the above, but it's not the only consistent first step. The following also is:

1. LJ intentionally introduces a change that'll earn them extra money and/or data at the expense of users' privacy etc. and hopes users won't notice.

[altivo]

The results of this coding change are far too complex for it to have been a simple error. Even if the only intent was the capture of affiliate benefits that were going unclaimed, instituting such an alteration to user links *without their knowledge* is a major ethical breach.

There was an intentional policy decision behind this, and it was not revealed in public until the heavy-handed code became obvious to those with sharp eyes. They still aren't talking about the policy decision, which amounts to major egg on their faces.

[schnee]

The "track outbound links" is obviously intentional; the "modify affiliate links" one, not so much.

More precisely, it's not clear that it was intentional as far as LJ is concerned. They may just have ended up getting more than they bargained for when they outsourced the link tracking to a shady third party.

I'm not saying it's true, just that it's a possibility.

[hgryphon]

I haven't bothered to try confirming it myself...

And this answers the question I asked you elsewhere.

[altivo]

And that statement is out of date. I have investigated at length since this post was made.