5 ms·

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/9clji/where_did_my_post_about_searscoms_urlhackable/c0c95xr http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/9clji/where_di

by lambda 14y ago

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/9clji/where_did_my_post_about_searscoms_urlhackable/c0c95xr http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/9clji/where_did_m... I should add that this is not direct pressure from their advertisers, but from their parent company, Condé Nast. I'm sure that Sears is and advertiser for at least some Condé Nast properties, so it's effectively the same, though with an extra level of indirection.

Karunamon 14y ago
Some context would be useful here. The post was in relation to a URL exploit on a Sears site, and I can see the justification for a company taking issue with a partner of theirs posting how to exploit their site. This isn't just "Advertiser gets a post banned they don't like", this is "Advertiser asks partner to pull down an exploit". Framing it as the former makes it sound like a capricious, moralizing decision.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]