AOL Blocks Links from LiveJournal 396
Martin continues:
"We've tried to contact AOL three different ways, all without success. We've also told our users to contact their tech support. At one point, an AOL
staffer pointed
out that FTP access still worked (which is probably because FTP has no
"Referrer" concept), and so, as an interim fix, we're rewriting all HTTP URLs
to use FTP on the AOL properties where that works instead. This means that
users can again host their images on the AOL webspace they're paying for, but
more importantly, it means they can simply link to their webpage.
We wouldn't be so upset if they were simply blocking images. Bandwidth use
is a valid concern, after all, and we even provide step-by-step
instructions for people to configure their webservers to prevent image
"theft". However, because they're blocking all access, including regular
links, this looks like it's either a mistake, or something more insidious (the
conspiracy theorists have pointed out that AOL has just launched their own
competing weblog product, also based on "journals").
Although CI Host
sued AOL recently for being blocked, we really don't want to do that. We
still suspect that this was all just a mistake, and hopefully, by making this
public, we'll manage to get their attention, since all our previous attempts
have failed."
F12 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:F12 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:F12 (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe they can claim technical difficulties if called on it, or maybe the contract does let them yank their users around like this. I don't know. Does anyone here use AOL and will admit it long enogh to post a link or copy of the appropriate contract?
Of course, there's the tinfoil-hat theory that AOL is planning to start thier own blogging service and wants to drag LiveJournal down from it's #1 spot a bit. Seems like a particularly blatant and non-clever way to do this though, or maybe that's the "beauty" of the whole ingenious plot?
Finally, I'm going to hope the
Re:F12 (Score:2)
AITP
Re:F12 (Score:3, Funny)
Are you Russian?
I, for one... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm getting a ritual circumcision as required by AOL CEO Levin as we speakKKKKALRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
I, for one... (Score:4, Funny)
A simpler, browser independent solution (Score:5, Informative)
For example:
If you want to link from livejournal.com/myPage1.html to members.aol.com/~myOtherPage.html, then make the link go to livejournal.com/myPage2.html
<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=http://members.aol.com/~myOtherPage.html">
It works accross all browsers and appears to AOL as if somebody just typed that URL directly into the address bar of their browser.
Re:A simpler, browser independent solution (Score:3, Informative)
Will this be what kills the referer header? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a minute (Score:5, Interesting)
I should also point out that some sites automatically block slashdot.org referers as a matter of self protection.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
My more centrist side says this could be abusing a monopoly (or at least dominant position), OK they dont have a microsoft style monopoly, but they do have the monopoly over Joe Stupid.
My cynical side says who gives a flying fuck
They Might Be Giants (Score:5, Funny)
My more centrist side says...
My cynical side says...
Hey look! It's Triangle Man!
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Funny)
Agreed. There are those who think Microsoft sucks, and those who think Microsoft blows.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:2)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:2)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:4, Funny)
I guess we'll have to try cold fusion again...
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me that this comes down to a question of the wording in the AOL user contract -- if it allows this, then the folks are SOL and chould change ISPs. If it doesn't allow this (such as my cable modem accont, which only mentio
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
This is webspace that AOL gives its users as part of their paid service. When you pay for webspace, the general idea is that it supports these things called hyperlinks. It stands to reason that you or anyone else should be allowed to link to your website from any other website. Any deviation from this traditional behavior should be documented in their terms of service, and is very shortsighted and/or stupid, as it threatens the very nature of the WWW, much like restrictions/penalties on linking to sites that are deemed undesirable.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Funny)
What does deep linking have to do with this? The story says it is all linking from a particular site that is being blocked.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
It is *both* a good technical solution and bad censorship.
A "technical solution" does not carry any moral or wider value judgements with it. It's essentally binary logic and a problem being addressed can be approached with the cold hard pragmatism of doing a math problem. It is objective.
The moral status of censorship is subjective. AOL's perfectly happy with the solution, or at least they are for the time being. Those being censored will us
Re:Wait a minute (Score:2)
How is this different from LiveJournal? Slashdot is one entity in the sense that it's owned by OSDN, and anybody can host a blog at LiveJournal.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:2)
What the hell does LiveJournal have to do with the fact that the posts on slashdot are not all made by a single person?
Re:Will this be what kills the referer header? (Score:2)
Then, those of us with a Referrer: header agenda will finally have our opportunity.
Re:Will this be what kills the referer header? (Score:3, Insightful)
It may be optional, but in my experience of using JunkBuster there are some sites which won't work without a referrer header coming from their site.
If the referrer header does die and those sites have to reconfigure their systems I don't see that as a bad thing. Why should I be treated any differently based on the previous site I have visited, or because I want to keep my browsing history private?
Re:Will this be what kills the referer header? (Score:4, Interesting)
Killing referers kills EVERYTHING (Score:5, Interesting)
We cut our bandwith by 50% that way.
Re:Killing referers kills EVERYTHING (Score:5, Informative)
There _is_ a fairly safe way of doing what you are after - let through empty strings and strings with spaces in. This lets through legitimate users who either disable the referer header, or have it set to "blocked by Norton" or whatever, whilst still stopping anyone from usefully using your bandwidth (since most of their visitors will still be providing the referer header).
Re:Killing referers kills EVERYTHING (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, but...
First, the "correct" status code would be be 403 Forbidden, 401 Unauthorized is used if "the request requires user authentication" and will cause the browser to prompt the user for login information.
And for status 403, the HTTP standard (RFC 2616 [rfc-editor.org]) says that "If the server does not wish to make this information [explaining why the request what not fulfilled] available to the client, the status code 404 (Not Found) can be used instead." The normal use for status 404 is if the server cannot find the requested resource, but according to the RFC it is also "commonly used when the server does not wish to reveal exactly why the request has been refused, or when no other response is applicable."
So, either status code 403 or 404 are correct when trying to prevent precise ("deep") links from working. I agree that 403 is preferable.
Re:Killing referers kills EVERYTHING (Score:4, Interesting)
you may have cut half your bandwidth, but youll notice you also cut a third of your user base. hey, you might try blocking images for EVERYONE, then youd REALLY save some serious bandwidth!
somehow i just dont envision there being millions of sites posting entire comic strips on their pages linking to your sites images...
Re:Will this be what kills the referer header? (Score:4, Funny)
Can control referer with RefSpoof for Mozilla (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Will this be what kills the referer header? (Score:3, Informative)
For Mozilla/Firebird/etc, just install the Prefbar [mozdev.org] addin. It can be customized to include a send referrer button. Personally, I like the kill flash button the best. Makes those dancing flash ads quiet, while still allowing me to use flash.
hopefully (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:hopefully (Score:5, Interesting)
When I worked there (Netscape), we had 5 OC-48s in our building alone. OC-12s & DS-3 circuits for "redundancy."
I highly doubt that it has anything to do with bandwidth.
sure (Score:4, Interesting)
I suspect that they are like SCO, in that no one with any self respect or knowledge will work for them. The first time I complained about being blocked, they replied that no one there knew how to allow a server on a "dynamic" subnet. (Dynamic my shiny metal ass.) Later, I heard that no one knew how to allow one ip address while blocking the rest of the subnet. As a result, I'm being accused of the half a billion pieces of spam my ISP's other customers send to AOL.
Let's hope that broadband finally kills those bastards off. I hope their stock falls so much in value that they start using outstanding shares as toilet paper. (I'd pay to use it as toilet paper, but they want a lot more than it's worth...)
Re:sure (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:hopefully (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, this really stinks of anti-competetive practices in the light of the fact that they're just now moving into the blogging market. If LiveJournal can come up with a lawyer (other than Boies) w
Litigate (Score:2, Interesting)
Also put up a message on your support lines with Steve Case's phone # to call him for support
Good. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good. (Score:3, Interesting)
AOL and Blogs (Score:5, Insightful)
tinyurl? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:tinyurl? (Score:4, Informative)
AOL just needs to stop doing that shit. Clamp down on the people transferring 200 gigs in the exhibitionism-community-of-the-week, and leave everyone else alone.
Jouster (My LJ [livejournal.com])
Re:tinyurl? (Score:5, Informative)
If you're on web page A, click on a link to B and it redirects to C, some browsers will, when fetching C, have a referrer of A, and some will have a referrer of B.
Re:tinyurl? (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't work for images, but who cares?
Re:tinyurl? (Score:2)
I should know better than to reply to trolls.
Well played... (Score:5, Insightful)
A very good point (Score:3, Insightful)
I do like their approach of hitting up the Slashdot crowd looking for more information and passing on what they have.
More companies should do like you said
Scary image (Score:2, Funny)
Yet another reason not to like AOL users. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go wash out my eyes with nitric acid.
Sorta related (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen iso8859 and text/iso8859-html, neither of which Firebird likes...
Re:Sorta related (Score:2)
Re:Sorta related (Score:2)
not that a suprise.
Just can't get to my faverate Beekeeping
website.
Use link referers (Score:4, Informative)
It wouldn't help people with embedded links to images at AOL, but at least it could get people to AOL without any additional clicking.
They block slashdot too. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:They block slashdot too. (Score:5, Informative)
It has nothing to do with AOL.
They did it because bugzilla is an entirely dynamic site, and an important tool being used by the developers.
The last thing they want, is 50,000 slashdot users hitting it at once and preventing them from working.
Re:They block slashdot too. (Score:2)
Solution: (Score:4, Informative)
I use Adelphia PowerLink at home. On the road, I have a dial up account with a local ISP with dial up numbers in the cities I frequently have to visit.
Re:Solution: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, for one thing, AOL has been "broken" in many ways for many years, and yet they still have an enormous and loyal user base. So does Windows, for that matter.
The problem is that for the average AOL user, who to put it bluntly is probably both too stupid to figure this out on their own and too lazy to read LiveJournal's explanation, it will appear just as likely that LiveJournal is "broken", not AOL. They will squeal "OMG WTF IT DONT WORK!!!!!1!!!11!!!
This is how the fragile and complex interoperability between pieces of computer software, which is opaque to most users, can subvert the workings of the free marketplace; if company A sabotages their product so that it won't work with company B's product, it is easy for customers to be fooled into blaming company B.
Microsoft did this with their implementation of Java, and probably many other times. I doubt if this is some deliberate strategy on AOL's part, but the result will probably be the same regardless.
Why is it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying AOL is in the right. I'm simply saying that AOL (and companies like them) should be made to lie in the bed they make for themselves. Only when AOL customers start to be inconvenienced by AOL's own policies (rather than third parties patching together "workarounds" in a misguided attempt to protect the integrity of AOL) will they realize what AOL is up to...
mail as well? (Score:3, Insightful)
It almost makes you think that they don't like us..."
AOLers are only getting sanitized Internet to the company's liking... Those who are not happy should switch.
And AOL wonders why..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Quick fix for HREFs viewed by MSIE (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, this trick really only works with MSIE. But it's better than nothing. The above should all be on one line. Check for extra white space where the line feed got placed by Slashdot's bug (thanks alot).
It should be strip_referrer.js with no space. Why does Slashdot do that??
Re:Quick fix for HREFs viewed by MSIE (Score:5, Insightful)
Load a javascript off the website of someone else you don't trust? Cmon now... let's just invite a stranger into your home to watch all your websurfing, or post the contents of your cookie file to your LJ.
Anthony, I'm sure you're a nice guy and all, but would you trust a random stranger's javascript on every one of your webpages?
(The space added to the URL you pasted in is added to every long word at the 50-character mark, to make sure idiots can't break your browser rendering by typing very long words into their comments.)
Re:Quick fix for HREFs viewed by MSIE (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no problem releasing the script for anyone to use. The script comments say as much. But for the average user, it's easier to just dump HTML on a page. If you know how, by all means, copy the script on your own server.
Anyway, this should be interesting. Carry on.
Re:Quick fix for HREFs viewed by MSIE (Score:2, Informative)
If a page has a single line which is wider than the browser windows, then every line on that page will expand to that width, which forces the reader to scroll horizontally and back every single line, which is very annoying.
Slashdot avoids this by simply adding a space every N characters. This could be better done by having it add a space if there are N consecutive nonspace characters, but it is done for good reason.
Re:Quick fix for HREFs viewed by MSIE (Score:2)
12345678790123456787901234567879012345678790123
As with most features, it's there for a reason. This one just happens to be based on page-widening trolls.
Re:Quick fix for HREFs viewed by MSIE (Score:2)
Too easy to abuse.
Re:Quick fix for HREFs viewed by MSIE (Score:2)
<A HREF="javascript:window.location='http://phroggy.
Or:
<A HREF="http://phroggy.com/" onClick="window.location='http://phroggy.com/'; return false;">Link</A>
Somebody correct me if I've made an obvious error in my JavaScript. You get the idea, though.
Re:Quick fix for HREFs viewed by MSIE (Score:2)
Re:Quick fix for HREFs viewed by MSIE (Score:2)
Re:Quick fix for HREFs viewed by MSIE (Score:2)
What's AOL's stated policy... (Score:3, Interesting)
Referrer Header (Score:4, Insightful)
AOL blows (Score:2, Interesting)
Pretty soon AOL will have blocked all of it's lusers from the entire web.
anonymyzer (Score:2)
Common Decency Dictates.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Leave it to AOL... (Score:2, Insightful)
Stupid, stupid, stupid..
Bounce through a third party! (Score:5, Informative)
Debian link to aol.com [debian.org]
Yahoo link to aol.com [yahoo.com]
Google link to aol.com [google.com]
Goatse link (yes, its true, goatse is useful!) to aol.com [goatse.cx]
Hopefully, unless AOL wants to block the internet off, people will get around, and we can always set up p2p based redirection system (ala freenet). To get trough.
I keep having to tell people .... (Score:2)
"It's not the internet - It's AOL"
Here's another reason why thats too true.
Company People (Score:4, Interesting)
When AOL needed help setting up their blogging software, who did they talk to? People like Dave Winer and other members of the net community.
So shouldn't there be some sort of Karma here where we, the blogging community, ostracize a bad player. They do it to spammers all the time, why not to the big guys. They'll eventually realize that it's not profitable to do so, and conform.
We could choose to disallow AOL urls into weblogs. We could prevent anybody with an AOL account having an RSS feed to a Blogger or LiveJournal. We could ban them from our conferences. Sounds like we're being assholes or "closed" by doing so, but I think it's important for people to check the bully to in the long-term enable the most openess possible.
Re:Company People (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, I'd block **AA sites from access my site before AOL and have it show them a note saying they're prohibited from visiting my site and any attempt to get around it violates the DMCA.
Re:Company People (Score:2)
Idea. (Score:2, Funny)
(2) ???
(3) Profit!
AOL wants to seperate from the internet, lets help (Score:3, Funny)
Update (Score:2, Informative)
This block seems more intermittent, but it makes you wonder, since Netscape is owned by AOHELL...
All hail Proxomitron! (Score:4, Informative)
HEH. (Score:3, Interesting)
Simple.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Preventing a slashdotting (Score:4, Insightful)
On a technical note, you can set up a page with a META Refresh which will clear the referrer (a HTTP server transfer will keep the original referrer intact though)
Has it blocked deadjournal and blurty? (Score:2)
There may be method to this madness... (Score:2, Insightful)
Leave them feedback (Score:5, Insightful)
You've Got Blog (Score:4, Funny)
"Everyone has a story to tell; what's yours? Create an AOL Journal about your summer vacation, being pregnant or trying to find a new job. AOL makes it easy, fast and fun!"
"Get Started Today
Create a Journal
Build your own blog
with our cool tools. "
It's all right there. I didn't have the heart to actually check out the blogs.
What do we need with an open-source, customizable system like LJ's, complete with lively, growing user communities? Who needs software that might foster an actual original thought? Interacting with strangers is so...icky! We can pay lots of money instead to record our sanitized inmost feelings on the AOL version.
They're probably staying awake nights figuring out how to block links from independent systems like Moveable Type. Could Slashdot be far behind?
Anne
Bloggers ate my samwich (Score:3, Interesting)
I "run" a (dormant) photo website on a commercial hosting service. I pay about twenty bucks a month for the diskspace and capped bandwidth - a reasonable amount, I think, which allows me to serve my users without garish adbanner detritus.
The ordinary site traffic is reasonably stable and keeps well below my bandwidth cap, but parasitic inline traffic comes on top of that, drawing close to redline.
I'm very seriously considering blocking livejournal and any other blog site I can think of, as their users frequently inline my images, eating a little of my bandwidth each time one of their blog pages are loaded. I have some car photos which about fifty retarded pimply teens have inlined on their pages for apparently decorative purposes.
I'm much too busy to go out and chase down every offender, but at the same time I've been reluctant to activate a simple block rule to get rid of the inline traffic once and for all. I guess I should follow AOL's example, eh?
Re:Gee alot of ISP's use referrer blocking. (Score:5, Interesting)
A t1 line is still over $700 per month, so burstable bandwidth starts at more than $2 per gigabyte. People who are on better pipes pay way less, of course, but then again they need to maintain them, and technicians start at about $25 per hour. Servers need to be powered, backed up and maintained to prevent hackattacks. So when somebody offers you unlimited bandwidth, unlimited space, unlimited email with 24x7 support for a pretty number like $7.77 or $5.55 or whatever, they're basically lying to you.
Check your AUP. Somewhere in there you'll find a line saying that your unlimited bandwidth can be terminated at any time if you use too much of it. Unlimited really means "We're not telling you the limits. But you'll know when you hit them." Generally because your site takes off. You get popular, people start laughing at your jokes and caring about your weblog. Then your provider cuts the cord. Sucks, don't it?
See, ISPs at all levels make money by overselling. They tell you you have a T1, when really it's fractional. They tell you you have 256 kbit upstream, then it maxes at 192. The most egregious example of this is the El-Cheapo webhost, an animal I despised so much that I started my own crummy service [webslum.org] to combat it. If you have the know-how, and you have the time, I suggest you do the same. It can be a lot of fun and offsets the cost of big web projects [dasmegabyte.org]. Just don't harbor any dreams of getting stinko rich.
I remember the first time I had a site get "overnight popular." It was a certain web comic [somethingpositive.net] that we begged to come on board. In about two weeks ge went from moving 2 gig a month to over 50. And because we small timers get the short end of the bandwidth stick, his bill was about $200. Not his bill FROM us, but the bill TO us from our host for just his transfer. We didn't mark it up. That's a lot of money when you're a hobbiest. Shit, that was as much as we paid for everybody else's bandwidth that month.
We have a policy of not touching people's sites or restricting tranfer, but if we hadn't known the guy (and known he was good for the money, which his new fans donated in droves, we even threw in $30), we probably would have had to use the "no contract" clause and take the site offline. Damned if I'm paying for somebody else's popularity...