4 ms·

I do not know the Swedish law either, but let's take it to an extreme: If someone were to run a site called Assassin Bay, where clients could post .target file

by sfk 18y ago

I do not know the Swedish law either, but let's take it to an extreme: If someone were to run a site called Assassin Bay, where clients could post .target files specifying jobs and hit men could accept those jobs, I'm sure that the site would be taken down within hours and the site owner would go to prison. Even in Sweden. EDIT: To allow for the possibility that the Assassin Bay also has legal traffic, replace .target with .ad files. Then assume generously that advertisements for legal jobs make for 80% of the traffic and 20% are hits. The argument I made would still hold.

harpastum 18y ago
I think a much better analogy would be if someone were to run a site called "Craig's List," and had a section devoted to 'personals.' Would the webmaster be _legally_ responsible for those using that service for prostitution? (again, not the site's moral responsibility to itself [craigslist cracks down on this sort of thing], but to the point of being able to arrest and imprison craigslist webmasters.)
- sfk 18y ago
  If a site has been running for several years and a substantial portion of the ads are illegal and during all that time the site admins have repeatedly refused to remove illegal ads, then yes, the site admins have some responsibility.
brianto2010 18y ago
I see your point. However, I reworded the comparison a bit and some things don't look right even though they are. Pirate Bay : Assasin Bay Legal .torrent : .ad Illegal .torrent : .target Illegal Download : Loss of Life Property : Life The last analogy seems a bit inhumane. Then again, > let's take it to an extreme
- sfk 18y ago
  Thanks for seeing the point, which was that beyond a certain stage a website should not be able to maintain an "impartial" stance. Your list will not look shocking any more if you add a line for the respective sentences: Pirate bay : Assassin Bay slap on the wrist : 15 years (1) (1) if the admins provably and repeatedly have refused to remove .target files.

by sfk 18y ago

harpastum 18y ago

I think a much better analogy would be if someone were to run a site called "Craig's List," and had a section devoted to 'personals.' Would the webmaster be _legally_ responsible for those using that service for prostitution? (again, not the site's moral responsibility to itself [craigslist cracks down on this sort of thing], but to the point of being able to arrest and imprison craigslist webmasters.)

sfk 18y ago
If a site has been running for several years and a substantial portion of the ads are illegal and during all that time the site admins have repeatedly refused to remove illegal ads, then yes, the site admins have some responsibility.

brianto2010 18y ago

I see your point. However, I reworded the comparison a bit and some things don't look right even though they are. Pirate Bay : Assasin Bay Legal .torrent : .ad Illegal .torrent : .target Illegal Download : Loss of Life Property : Life The last analogy seems a bit inhumane. Then again, > let's take it to an extreme

sfk 18y ago
Thanks for seeing the point, which was that beyond a certain stage a website should not be able to maintain an "impartial" stance. Your list will not look shocking any more if you add a line for the respective sentences: Pirate bay : Assassin Bay slap on the wrist : 15 years (1) (1) if the admins provably and repeatedly have refused to remove .target files.