Leave a comment

sundayave April 16 2010, 00:53:15 UTC
Hey, LJ staff, no word on you lot introducing a new ~driving revenue~ script that redirects people's links through outboundlink.net AGAIN? I would like an explanation and why does it affect EVERY LINK EVER on EVERY LJ PAGE EVER on only HOVERING the damn link? I'm confused, and it scared the hell out of me as I had no idea what were all those scripts loaded on my flist, I thought someone had spammed a community.

I've already blocked it obvs. PEOPLE, GET FIREFOX AND ADBLOCK AND NOSCRIPT, THEN GO AROUND BLOCKING EVERY NON-USEFUL LJ SCRIPT. There you go, done my bit!

Reply

sundayave April 16 2010, 23:55:36 UTC
And could you also address these security concerns detailed here?

Reply

ryf April 17 2010, 08:32:38 UTC
and is a transparent process

How so, if it was never mentioned anywhere?

Our definitions of "transparent" are obviously very different.

Reply

soph April 19 2010, 18:27:00 UTC
They are, yes. What dnewhall meant by that is that it doesn't affect anyone who shouldn't be affected, and that the URL you get redirected to would have the same content as the URL that was originally there.

(of course, I believe nobody should be affected by this in the first place, but I wanted to at least make it clear what was meant)

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

(The comment has been removed)

anti_aol April 17 2010, 17:18:23 UTC
It all depends on the definition of "it".

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

anti_aol April 17 2010, 20:46:32 UTC
It was a Bill Clinton reference but I see I screwed it up: the correct version is, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

I was actually poking fun at LJ for their obvious lack of transparency and their unwillingness to speak openly and honestly even once they're called on this issue by their users - not parsing what you said in a negative way.

Reply

newsbean April 21 2010, 22:02:51 UTC
NoScript won't work because it's being done through LJ's servers. So, unless you're blocking LJ (which turns off plenty of functions for paid users), it's not gonna do anything.

Reply

trixieleitz April 22 2010, 01:02:04 UTC
You can, however, use Adblock to selectively block just that one script. I don't know if NoScript offers that degree of specificity.

Reply

kahlan_amnell April 24 2010, 15:34:41 UTC
Except, if you block this script via NoScript you can't get links to work without right clicking to open a new window. Disabling it via the admin console works better in this case.

Reply

anti_aol April 17 2010, 17:15:18 UTC
We believe it's been thoroughly tested and works correctly will make us money now, even on paid accounts like anti-aol's.

There, I fixed that for ya. But I won't always be around to do so, so try to be more honest in the future. The level of bullshit on LJ is reaching such dizzying proportions we're going to need shovels to dig through it soon.

Reply

raanve April 17 2010, 17:38:07 UTC
I suppose my question would be, why tamper with user content (links included) at all? And considering how this didn't work the last time -- and how little communication from LJ users got on the issue -- why should we trust this "transparent process" now?

This sort of interaction from LJ doesn't exactly make me want to re-establish my paid account.

Reply

anti_aol April 17 2010, 20:03:24 UTC
It has something to do with them seeing many dollar signs. The people who own LJ see them ("$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$") dancing before their eyes night and day, in their dreams, in their thoughts, on paper, online, on TV, and so they move to the crack-like draw of those unstoppable visions of piles of cold, hard cash. That's all.

Why they're being so secretive about it? They figure it's so subtly done no one will ever notice unless they tell us. They don't want "anyone"* getting mad, since they don't want to lose any content or goodwill that they can monetize, so they keep mum.

*For the record, the two dozen or so of us who have lost our cool over it so far don't count as "anyone". We are perfectly invisible both to LJ staff, and to LJ users at large. Isn't it neat how that works? It's like I'm not even here writing this comment, you know? I don't officially exist, and neither do any other "troublemakers".Mind you, I'm sorry to say I wouldn't mind them pulling this JavaScript redirect stuff and maybe a lot worse on only the free users. I ( ... )

Reply

jonquil April 18 2010, 00:50:24 UTC
The last straw that led to this paid user *becoming* a free user was the first iteration of their leet scripting skills.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up