WORDPRESS CENSORSHIP OF CONTENT THAT IS PUBLICALLY APPROVED

  • Author
    Posts
  • #1037113

    macmanx
    Staff

    So, you are not trying to re-publish the article in its entirety?

    #1037120

    serious2020
    Member

    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.

    #1037122

    serious2020
    Member

    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.

    #1037124

    timethief
    Member

    Please simply provide the URL for this article and we shall go to where it is situate and figure this out.

    #1037125

    macmanx
    Staff

    What is the URL of the article?

    #1037131

    serious2020
    Member

    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

    #1037133

    serious2020
    Member

    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

    #1037140

    macmanx
    Staff

    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.

    http://en.support.wordpress.com/images/

    #1037146

    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).

    #1037149

    timethief
    Member

    @notawoodpecker
    Agreed.

    #1037221

    serious2020
    Member

    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

    #1037222

    macmanx
    Staff

    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.

    #1037225

    serious2020
    Member

    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

    #1037227

    serious2020
    Member

    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

    #1037228

    timethief
    Member

    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.

    #1037231

    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.

    #1037244

    raincoaster
    Member

    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.

    #1037250

    justpi
    Member

    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…

    #1037251

    raincoaster
    Member

    On occasion I can be subtle.

    #1037252

    raincoaster
    Member

    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.