5 ms·

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I have no problem whatsoever with removing offending content from Snipt. I regularly remove and ban users who post illegal or otherwise inappropriate

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I have no problem whatsoever with removing offending content from Snipt. I regularly remove and ban users who post illegal or otherwise inappropriate content on the site. If they contact me, I'll happily remove anything even remotely "pro terrorist group ISIS", but as mentioned, I've received no such requests (and I don't proactively review private snippets for offensive content unless it's reported to me).

TylerE 12y ago
That may not be in your best interest, lefally. Pro-active moderation makes it very hard to argue safe harbor status.
- nicksergeant 12y ago
  How so?
- oasisbob 12y ago
  With regards to DMCA, 512(m) seems applicable.
  - nicksergeant 12y ago
    Applicable how?
    - chris_wot 12y ago
      "(m) Protection of Privacy.— Nothing in this section shall be construed to condition the applicability of subsections (a) through (d) on— (1) a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity, except to the extent consistent with a standard technical measure complying with the provisions of subsection (i); or (2) a service provider gaining access to, removing, or disabling access to material in cases in which such conduct is prohibited by law." Dude, you desperately need a designated agent. You just aren't under safe harbor at the moment.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- adventured 12y ago
  Not true. If you're alerted to offending material and you remove it, you haven't broken safe harbor status what-so-ever. Otherwise YouTube, DropBox, Instagram and countless other sites would be dead. The only way you break safe harbor is if you know of offending material, eg by a filter or having been alerted to it, and leave that material in place. If you run content filters (such as at the point of upload), then you have to be more careful. The difference being between after-the-fact moderation and pre-screening. If you pre-screen you take on a greater burden of risk, in terms of copyright holders being able to argue you knew about something and didn't remove it, or should have known.
  - Vivtek 12y ago
    Being alerted to offending material is not proactive screening.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  It's not pro-active, it is reactive. He explicitly states he's not doing pro-active removals.
  - chris_wot 12y ago
    His contact info for copyright requests is not prominent on his website, at least not that I can see.
- nullc 12y ago
  It absolutely does not. The safe harbors provided by S512 and S230 are absolute and are not impeded by proactive (or reactive) administration. This is part of their reason for their existence.
benjarrell 12y ago
Do you have a terms of service and/or privacy policy? I can't locate it.
- nicksergeant 12y ago
  We don't have one, no. Going to get one up tonight.
  - chris_wot 12y ago
    Speaking of safe harbour, have you registered yourself with the copyright office with a designated contact person to receive DMCA takedown requests? You don't seem to have a prominent link to that info on your mobile page. I suspect that THAT will cause you issues.
  - dghughes 12y ago
    I don't think the terrorists will care /jk :P
chernevik 12y ago
I'm sure everything is happening very fast right now, but I hope you arrive at a policy more carefully drawn than this. All terrorists suck, and they haven't any right to use services like yours to coordinate hurting other people. Nor does anyone have the right to incite violence. But people do have a right to political opinions, and some such might be interpreted as "remotely pro terrorist", without actually being coordination or incitement. Finding the right lines for these determinations is hard, and I don't envy anyone the task of drawing them. And again, things may be moving fast now, and I understand that if there are real concerns about safety that a broad brush might be the first starting point for you. Even so, I hope that whatever policy you adopt iterates over the fullness of time to something that respects people's rights to express their opinions.
- nicksergeant 12y ago
  I appreciate your comments. Snipt is a very low-traffic site so I doubt my decisions along these lines will ever have much impact on very many people in general, but I am filing for DMCA agent status and will adopt an official Terms of Use and all that jazz. As a tiny (open-source) side project, this stuff is no fun, but I realize it's now a requirement if I want to continue leaving the site up.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- bigbugbag 12y ago
  > All terrorists suck Being the descendant in a family that was host of several terrorists, I have to disagree with you. See once the war was over and nazi germany got booted out, all those terrorists in my family instantly turned into resistance heroes. Turns out those terrorists in my family were just ordinary people who got into this for reason as simple as having a bike allowing them to move around and relay messages, sort of an internet over bike and some of them got caught and executed for that.
  - possibilistic 12y ago

TylerE 12y ago

That may not be in your best interest, lefally. Pro-active moderation makes it very hard to argue safe harbor status.

nicksergeant 12y ago
How so?
oasisbob 12y ago
With regards to DMCA, 512(m) seems applicable.
- nicksergeant 12y ago
  Applicable how?
  - chris_wot 12y ago
    "(m) Protection of Privacy.— Nothing in this section shall be construed to condition the applicability of subsections (a) through (d) on— (1) a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity, except to the extent consistent with a standard technical measure complying with the provisions of subsection (i); or (2) a service provider gaining access to, removing, or disabling access to material in cases in which such conduct is prohibited by law." Dude, you desperately need a designated agent. You just aren't under safe harbor at the moment.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
adventured 12y ago
Not true. If you're alerted to offending material and you remove it, you haven't broken safe harbor status what-so-ever. Otherwise YouTube, DropBox, Instagram and countless other sites would be dead. The only way you break safe harbor is if you know of offending material, eg by a filter or having been alerted to it, and leave that material in place. If you run content filters (such as at the point of upload), then you have to be more careful. The difference being between after-the-fact moderation and pre-screening. If you pre-screen you take on a greater burden of risk, in terms of copyright holders being able to argue you knew about something and didn't remove it, or should have known.
- Vivtek 12y ago
  Being alerted to offending material is not proactive screening.
jacquesm 12y ago
It's not pro-active, it is reactive. He explicitly states he's not doing pro-active removals.
- chris_wot 12y ago
  His contact info for copyright requests is not prominent on his website, at least not that I can see.
nullc 12y ago
It absolutely does not. The safe harbors provided by S512 and S230 are absolute and are not impeded by proactive (or reactive) administration. This is part of their reason for their existence.

benjarrell 12y ago

Do you have a terms of service and/or privacy policy? I can't locate it.

nicksergeant 12y ago
We don't have one, no. Going to get one up tonight.
- chris_wot 12y ago
  Speaking of safe harbour, have you registered yourself with the copyright office with a designated contact person to receive DMCA takedown requests? You don't seem to have a prominent link to that info on your mobile page. I suspect that THAT will cause you issues.
- dghughes 12y ago
  I don't think the terrorists will care /jk :P

chernevik 12y ago

I'm sure everything is happening very fast right now, but I hope you arrive at a policy more carefully drawn than this. All terrorists suck, and they haven't any right to use services like yours to coordinate hurting other people. Nor does anyone have the right to incite violence. But people do have a right to political opinions, and some such might be interpreted as "remotely pro terrorist", without actually being coordination or incitement. Finding the right lines for these determinations is hard, and I don't envy anyone the task of drawing them. And again, things may be moving fast now, and I understand that if there are real concerns about safety that a broad brush might be the first starting point for you. Even so, I hope that whatever policy you adopt iterates over the fullness of time to something that respects people's rights to express their opinions.

nicksergeant 12y ago
I appreciate your comments. Snipt is a very low-traffic site so I doubt my decisions along these lines will ever have much impact on very many people in general, but I am filing for DMCA agent status and will adopt an official Terms of Use and all that jazz. As a tiny (open-source) side project, this stuff is no fun, but I realize it's now a requirement if I want to continue leaving the site up.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
bigbugbag 12y ago
> All terrorists suck Being the descendant in a family that was host of several terrorists, I have to disagree with you. See once the war was over and nazi germany got booted out, all those terrorists in my family instantly turned into resistance heroes. Turns out those terrorists in my family were just ordinary people who got into this for reason as simple as having a bike allowing them to move around and relay messages, sort of an internet over bike and some of them got caught and executed for that.
- possibilistic 12y ago