topic icons
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Because it's not a logical way to run a community at scale.
Spiceworks Does.
Webroot Does.
VMware Does.
Xen Orchestra Does.
Sophos Does.I am finding it hard to find a community that doesn't.
SW also does their own hosting and spends seven figures to do so.
What's the reason why not to? You are avoiding the issues.
-
@anonymous said:
It's feel all over the place. It's too much to look at. It was nice a simply before. I like simply
How is it any different than with the user avatars? I don't know that there is any setting to disable all graphics. that would be nice as a setting, but given that I think you have to either see the avatar or the topic thumbnail on any given thread, it seems to be a draw from that angle.
-
@anonymous said:
I am finding it hard to find a community that doesn't.
Every community on NodeBB does, because that's the code base making it happen. Even those that offer their own hosting also offer non-hosted images too. Every site using Gravatar is not hosting their own. How many don't use Gravatar? SW is unique and older, in that regards, predating Gravatar.
-
I agree no animated ones.
-
It's up to people not to put animated ones there. People put up their own thumbnails too, it's not centralized (hence the reference page to make it easy for people.)
Although I did put up one animated ones for one of my threads and it was the ONLY specific one to get positive feedback specifically about it
-
Has anyone tried using the thumbnails to find a thread? I have and I feel like it makes it so much faster as you can look in "recent" and see what the general topic is at a glance without having to read the title. Maybe I'm more graphically driven than most people for recognition but it makes it far easier for me to identify topics at a glance.
-
This post is deleted! -
@anonymous said:
I am? You still didn't answer who pays the costs of running the community.
Ah, but you didn't ask that and I asked why it would matter. You asked who paid for the bandwidth and where it was hosted, both of which I answered and asked you why it mattered.
Of course GS pays for the community. Now, why are you asking?
-
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You are avoiding the issues.
Yes. You are trying to beat around the bush and not addressing whatever your concern is. You said that you don't like it but haven't said why. You haven't said what the improved alternative is or why you assume problems. You are holding back something that you want to complain about or something that you feel is an issue and looking at things that aren't issues. Like you are concerned about image maintenance, but you don't state why that is an issue. Are you expecting to have to maintain images? Why? Are you expecting images to go away? Why?
It's like you have something to say but are trying to talk everyone out of using thumbnails without actually saying why you dislike them.
-
This post is deleted! -
@anonymous said:
Because your whole theory that your GS isn't liable for the misuse of images doesn't make any since.
I stated a theory? Where and what was it?
-
This post is deleted! -
@anonymous said:
How far are you willing to take that theory? If someone posted a copyrighted movie would you not be liable because it wasn't stored on the server?
While I stated no theory, that is correct. The liability is with the host, not the linkage. If you post a YouTube video here and it has copyrighted content, the takedown notice goes to YouTube, not to the millions of sites where people may or may not link to it.
But that's not something I said, nor something we discussed in any way, nor is it of concern to the community members.
However, what is of concern, is if you don't link to it and actually upload it. Then it becomes your liability for sure.
Do you have a theory that if you actually host pirated content you are not liable but directing people to find it elsewhere you are?
-
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
It's not GroveSocial using them. It's a community forum.
Here.
That's who is putting up the thumbnails. You think that me stating the GS is not making a thumbnail system is a theory about IP copyright liability?
-
Again, the core question is... why does this concern anyone but GS? What about this is concerning to you specifically?
-
@anonymous said:
If someone posted a copyrighted movie would you not be liable because it wasn't stored on the server?
The use of "posted" here is misleading.
How ML works today: You cannot post video here. You can only link to video posted elsewhere.
How you are requesting that it work: That video actually be posted here.
We need to be clear in the terminology. You can't post a video on ML right now. You can't post an image here. You can only link to ones posted elsewhere.
-
That's not to say that ML cannot have liability for someone linking to something that they should not, that's always a potential risk. But unless media is forbidden, that cannot be stopped. Google can't stop that. Microsoft can't stop that. SW can't stop that. And all of those systems carry both the hosting as well as the linking liability, not only the linking. By not hosting at least some liability, that of hosting, does not exist. It cannot remove all liability, nothing can, but it is better without a doubt because there is simply less forms of liability involved - the big one not existing at all.
-
SW does not host their own videos either, they link in the same manner. It is only their static image files that they host themselves. They did this before S3 was popular and before it was an industry standard to use specific CDNs for this, such as Imgur.
