3 ms·
The primary argument being that altering links might be construed as a a modification of material hosted on the service.
by jakeludington 14y ago
The primary argument being that altering links might be construed as a a modification of material hosted on the service.
- fennecfoxen 14y agoI would suspect that a judge would be eminently willing to hear an argument that such a modification isn't really substantial and need not indicate the sort of editorial control that the law is considering when talking about who qualifies for various protections. It's far from clear that s/&refererId=.*//g exposes them to additional liability.
- FireBeyond 14y agoAgreed. Especially not when algorithmically managed. It is in no way comparable to a curated service / site. The author refuses to admit any bias in their position, too (that they make money in and around the world of affiliate marketing).
- jakeludington 14y agoActually, altering the link can alter the destination because in many cases the page presented to someone who entered via an affiliate link is different than the page presented when someone enters with a "naked" link. So if safe harbor is meant to protect a provider who doesn't make any changes to user generated content, then changing the link structure can in fact change the intent of the user.