WORDPRESS CENSORSHIP OF CONTENT THAT IS PUBLICALLY APPROVED
-
-
macmanx & notawoodpecker:
The latest article had FB, Pinterest, Twitter, G+, WP, Diggit, and one other social media sharing option embedded.
And I ALWAYS post a link back to the original article and give such credit whenever I WP anything. Generally a link is the ONLY thing I WP. I cannot even remember a time when I’ve WP’s an entire article!
So – I’m still unclear as to what is generating this ‘security’ message. But I will keep working on it.
-
macmanx:
No. Again. I do not ever attempt to re-publish an article in its entirety. Check my blog, if you choose not to believe this. I capture the link and then a photograph if there is one.
-
Please simply provide the URL for this article and we shall go to where it is situate and figure this out.
-
-
You are correct, auxclass – but again, I was not trying to repost the entire article, just the link and the photograph.
And the following is the link to the Los Angeles Times article which posed a ‘security’ question after I’d uploaded the LINK and the photograph into WP: NOT the entire article. I made NO attempt to do that.
This is the 3rd time this has happened to me, but each time was not the LA Times, and one time there wasn’t even a photograph.
MK
“Illegal immigrant journalist avoids deportation over traffic stop”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-jose-vargas-illegal-immigration-20121008,0,1904881.story -
I’ve got to go to school now. I’m late. I’ve spent too much time on this as it is. I’ll respond to anything I see later.
MK
-
Ok, it works without the image included.
The issue is how they’re broadcasting the image’s file type.
If you download and upload/insert the image yourself, you won’t have any trouble, though that might get kind of shaky as to the legalities. Their publishing license may allow it since you’re linking back, or it may not.
-
Looking at several images in other LAT articles, they are all something like this:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef01774467847d970d-640wi
I can see how that would trigger error messages. They must be using some kind of server-side code to host their own images (and to prevent reposting/hot-linking).
-
-
5:17pm
Thanks all. This conversation makes more sense. So in reference to the original topic, it is the LA Times that is actually doing the censoring, not WP.
It is also reassuring to know that it isn’t some weird technical thing that I’m doing incorrectly.
Malaika
-
There is no censorship going here.
They are broadcasting the file type in a form that seems suspicious to us, so we can’t accept it.
Ultimately, the issue is on their end, but it’s definitely not censorship.
-
9 October 2012
I disagree, but whatever.
As far as I am concerned, I’ve learned some things about how electronic mainstream news sources can prevent the public from accessing information.
The LA Times article experience shows how a relatively minor technological tool (a newspaper) can be ‘coded’ to limit or stop public access within a ‘news’ setting: electronic, hard copy, and/or otherwise.
Coding this article to retain the photo is a relatively small thing for a major mainstream news source. Yet if they will do this, what else will they code, i.e. determine that we should not access or even know about?
This conversation is finished from my end.
Malaika
-
That is a way of defining what is going on, if you choose. I do not agree. They’ve decided they want to limit the use of their intellectual property in a manner that is suspicious in a world wide web intellectual forum to which they subscribe.
This is a form of suppression of access – but who is being specifically suppressed is rather deliberately vague.
I can find a photo to fit the story (actually, I can supply my own photographs to the story.) But why they’re going through such lengths to suppress a photo that they’ve included in their article makes me wonder if they actually had the permission of the subject of the article to take the photo in the first place.
Whatever. I’m through with this discussion. It has been an experience.
Malaika
-
There may indeed be some substantive server side reason for the file designations they use. As the image can easily be captured and uploaded if indeed the terms of use allow for that your claim is once again over the top.
-
Not to go too far off-tangent, but I think you’ll be seeing more of this kind of thing in the near future. News sites are switching to subscription based models. On the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal (among many others), you don’t even get to read the entire story unless you’re logged in with a paid subscription.
Add in things like TLDg and IPv6 and the web isn’t going to be the same in a few years.
-
Well, I’ve alerted the LA times to the fact that you’re having difficulty embedding pictures from their newspaper in your blog, so perhaps you will hear from them here.
-
Nice, rain! Might prove more eloquent than trying to convince someone who wants to give new meanings to the notions of copyright and content theft…
-
-
The LA Times replied on Twitter. Here is what they said:
@raincoaster Thanks for the alert. After reading the thread, I must say that I don’t understand what the blogger is attempting. (cont)
definitely appreciate it. surprised someone having problems taking an image from our site and uploading to WP
not that we approve of such behavior.
Indeed. Heartening to see WP mods stepping in to educate people about copyright issues. have a good morning/day.
- The topic ‘WORDPRESS CENSORSHIP OF CONTENT THAT IS PUBLICALLY APPROVED’ is closed to new replies.
WordPress.com Forums 