Censored websites

Thanks. I actually already touched base with the moderator over there—we decided it was probably best if I didn't include the link. It’s not because they think it’s some sort of advertisement, but honestly... everything you'd need to know is already right there in what I wrote.

mellowraven22 said:Doubt we're publishing that list. Yeah, we block some portals here and there when they go overboard with self-promotion, but most of the stuff on the blacklist is just old-school referral links—you know, like those ancient Bytefiles clones or your typical spam sites. Honestly, there’s nothing interesting on that list.

Linking is fine, but advertising isn't.

Alright, so is there any actual willingness to unblock the sites that haven't even tried to spam us in months?

Bradley Sanders4 said:Alright, so is there any actual willingness to unblock the sites that haven't even tried to spam us in months?

Yeah, sure, once they stop those spammy ads for a few months, then maybe... 🙂

It’s like people can still only see the trees and completely miss the forest for what it is. 😵

I’ve run into a bit of a problem.:

Bradley Sanders4 said:Which sites are actually censored here—like, what am I not allowed to link to on this forum? I know The New York Times was the first one to get hit by the filters because a bunch of spammers were trying to pump up their traffic. Now I’m honestly a little annoyed to find out that All the Way Down and TinyURL are blocked too. Is there anything else? Does anyone have a master list somewhere?

And since those spammers who caused all this trouble are gone, are you guys even considering lifting some of these bans? It's standard practice for major news outlets to link directly to articles from other media sources, so I don't see why we have to deal with these restrictions here.

Vitamin supplements, herbal teas, and whatever else. 😁

mellowraven22 said:Doubt we're publishing that list. Yeah, we block some portals here and there when they go overboard with self-promotion, but most of the stuff on the blacklist is just old-school referral links—you know, like those ancient Bytefiles clones or your typical spam sites. Honestly, there’s nothing interesting on that list.

Linking is fine, but advertising isn't.

The Solution:

If we don't get rid of this whole "blacklist" of banned websites, people are just going to keep suffering.Look, I’m not saying anyone actually needs to see this, but apparently, we’ve got some unauthorized advertising going on again. Just a heads-up that if you're trying to hawk your services or drop links to your side hustles, it's strictly against the rules here. We aren't running a billboard in Times Square, so let's try to keep things civil and stick to the actual topics instead of turning the thread into a digital flea market.Honestly, I see people starting to suffer already, and it’s mostly just those random users who have absolutely nothing to do with all this spamming nonsense. For instance, little Mark might pop up on the Student Corner and write:

I’m not being malicious, rude, or lazy—I’m just a hyperactive dreamer. http://is.gd/NstpiF

... and I end up getting handed a pink slip just because of some "unauthorized advertising" nonsense, even though I didn't do a single thing wrong. See, the thing is, Who? I don't know what you're looking for, but if you were waiting for me to jump through hoops or provide some grand manifesto, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. I'm just sitting here, probably overthinking something trivial, ready to write whenever you actually have something to say. Where? Did someone actually tell him that posting links on The New York Times isn't allowed?

Bradley Sanders4 said:Samuel Morgan4, I’m with you—it’s an idiotic way to handle advertising. Honestly, I remember how much of a massive headache it was dealing with those spammers, and I totally get why blocking links feels like the easiest fix for the problem. I’m not against using blocks as a tool to kill spam, but I really think we should revisit the status of banned sites after a certain amount of time. Like Christian Taylor3 said earlier, hyperlinking is a fundamental part of online discussions; it’s basically what makes sharing info on the internet actually work. It feels pretty stupid to just ban a site forever just because some wannabe spammer decided to use it once. What if some idiot starts linking to YouTube everywhere—and you know how vital that service is for our Music discussions—or maybe someone links to the Los Angeles Times or The Washington Post when there's an active thread about them in Other media? Or even H&M in the Fashion section? Or any shopping site that actually provides useful info (unlike those sketchy game sites where you click a link and a vampire or a zombie bites you)? Ultimately, permanently restricting access does way more damage to the quality of the discussions here than the spam ever did. So, fine, use blocking as a last resort if we have to, but it shouldn't be a permanent sentence.

To wrap this up, here’s an interesting article I’m reading right now about the internet and journalism from that hated portal you love so much. Is it really so worthless that it deserves to be blocked? Is it better to just copy-paste the whole thing from Reddit to avoid giving them a single click, while still citing the source without a hyperlink? And then what do we do about music? Are we supposed to retell it, like hollowtrucker77 suggests? Describe where an album can be legally streamed? Write our own damn reviews instead of linking to someone else's? What if I just want to talk about the tone of an article (again, just look at the thread about JL in Other media)?

It seems like you might have cut off mid-sentence there. If you were trying to get me to rewrite something, just paste the full text and I'll get to work on it. Just numbers. And they’re actually doubling down on this—I’ve already laid out the full explanation on the first page if you want to see how ridiculous this is. Honestly, obsessing over whether we can use hyperlinks during discussions here on Reddit is about as productive as campaigning against the use of electricity. It’s 2011, for crying out loud. 😁

I honestly think it’s just plain ridiculous that because some wannabe spammer showed up once, they feel the need to keep an entire website locked in a bunker forever.

Honestly, that’s their own fault; all those sites rightfully ended up in this mess specifically because of that aggressive spamming.

Besides...

Bradley Sanders4 said:Samuel Morgan4, I’m with you—it’s an idiotic way to handle advertising. Honestly, I remember how much of a massive headache it was dealing with those spammers, and I totally get why blocking links feels like the easiest fix for the problem. I’m not against using blocks as a tool to kill spam, but I really think we should revisit the status of banned sites after a certain amount of time. Like Christian Taylor3 said earlier, hyperlinking is a fundamental part of online discussions; it’s basically what makes sharing info on the internet actually work. It feels pretty stupid to just ban a site forever just because some wannabe spammer decided to use it once. What if some idiot starts linking to YouTube everywhere—and you know how vital that service is for our Music discussions—or maybe someone links to the Los Angeles Times or The Washington Post when there's an active thread about them in Other media? Or even H&M in the Fashion section? Or any shopping site that actually provides useful info (unlike those sketchy game sites where you click a link and a vampire or a zombie bites you)? Ultimately, permanently restricting access does way more damage to the quality of the discussions here than the spam ever did. So, fine, use blocking as a last resort if we have to, but it shouldn't be a permanent sentence.

To wrap this up, here’s an interesting article I’m reading right now about the internet and journalism from that hated portal you love so much. Is it really so worthless that it deserves to be blocked? Is it better to just copy-paste the whole thing from Reddit to avoid giving them a single click, while still citing the source without a hyperlink? And then what do we do about music? Are we supposed to retell it, like hollowtrucker77 suggests? Describe where an album can be legally streamed? Write our own damn reviews instead of linking to someone else's? What if I just want to talk about the tone of an article (again, just look at the thread about JL in Other media)?

Who says anyone is blocked? 😁

Samuel Morgan40 said:I will merely add that, for me, that portal isn't actually hated. I stated quite clearly above that the site itself isn't bad. Nothing more, nothing less. I personally spent 12 years working in journalism (which is why I write so infrequently for Other media 😁). What you and Christian Taylor3 have written—well, we all know that part very well. As for whether things will stay this way, or if this "penalty" will have an expiration date where linking to said portal becomes allowed again, that is not up to me; it lies with the forum leadership.

I was simply attempting to briefly describe how irritatingly persistent that individual was—so much so that he triggered nothing but a counter-effect and mockery among users. Some even went as far as to say the portal is great, but that his behavior only pushes people away; because if the portal is supposedly serious, unique, or different... then it certainly doesn't need that kind of childish spam which only serves to degrade the image of the people working there—people who, frankly, didn't earn that reputation to begin with.

Did they at least apologize to the editorial staff after that incident? If they didn't, the administration has every right to keep them locked in the bunker. Looking at your detailed breakdown (thanks for that, by the way), it’s clear that in most cases, we're dealing with actual employees or contributors from these outlets. That’s a five-minute fix; any spammer popping up on the movie sub-section is spotted immediately and removed. They can make ten clones a day, but they won't last more than 24 hours (I've said much worse than this). Most importantly, the users themselves report them to the moderators.

@Tyndall

Just so some new kids don't accidentally use or abuse this information: spammers know exactly how to bypass your block on those specific links (let's not kid ourselves, even a smart six-year-old knows that), so the only real way to get one over on them is to add about fifty of the most popular 'URL shortening' services to the blocklist via the Admin Control Panel.

That’s just the starting point. 🙂

Let's circle back to this whole "problem-solution" loop from the beginning of the thread.

From what I can gather, it’s not actually against the rules to use a URL shortener to link to a site that's been censored. I mean, unless you’re some spammer using the service to blast ads constantly until both the site and the service get blacklisted—which clearly happened to TinyURL—this hasn't been an issue before. Honestly, it shouldn't be either, especially since there isn't even a definitive list of which sites are officially banned. Personally, my biggest gripe with re-linking is the lack of transparency. I have no idea what I'm actually clicking on unless some Random Redditor tells me beforehand. When I click a bit.ly link, I'm flying blind. I don't know if it's taking me to the All the Way Down news site, a "So you've been bitten by a zombie" article, or some sketchy page loaded with malware. If I can see the actual URL, at least I can make an informed choice about whether to click or not.

And look, I'm not suggesting we ban fifty different URL shortening services. I'm just saying we should get rid of those pages that some guy used to promote through aggressive spamming from his basement.

Some poor little guy using that bypass is acting all shocked, like, "Oh, I had no idea The New York Times was blocked," or whatever
😁
Let’s not get carried away here, please

So, look, I had no idea that Straight Down was blocked, and honestly, I wouldn't even know where to go to find out. That’s exactly why I’m asking for the list.

I'm just winging it here, honestly, I haven't got a clue
but if I try to drop a link and all I get back is a bunch of asterisks...

...so I'm not even allowed to relink it using a URL shortener? Even when it isn't spam and doesn't contain anything harmful to the forum—in fact, it actually adds value to the discussion (like that article about Z in the thread about Z)?

Of course you may.
It isn't permitted if it constitutes spam, which I suppose should go without saying.

Christian Taylor3 said:It’s like people can still only see the trees and completely miss the forest for what it is. 😵

I’ve run into a bit of a problem.:

The Solution:

If we don't get rid of this whole "blacklist" of banned websites, people are just going to keep suffering.Look, I’m not saying anyone actually needs to see this, but apparently, we’ve got some unauthorized advertising going on again. Just a heads-up that if you're trying to hawk your services or drop links to your side hustles, it's strictly against the rules here. We aren't running a billboard in Times Square, so let's try to keep things civil and stick to the actual topics instead of turning the thread into a digital flea market.Honestly, I see people starting to suffer already, and it’s mostly just those random users who have absolutely nothing to do with all this spamming nonsense. For instance, little Mark might pop up on the Student Corner and write:

I’m not being malicious, rude, or lazy—I’m just a hyperactive dreamer. http://is.gd/NstpiF

... and I end up getting handed a pink slip just because of some "unauthorized advertising" nonsense, even though I didn't do a single thing wrong. See, the thing is, Who? I don't know what you're looking for, but if you were waiting for me to jump through hoops or provide some grand manifesto, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. I'm just sitting here, probably overthinking something trivial, ready to write whenever you actually have something to say. Where? Did someone actually tell him that posting links on The New York Times isn't allowed?

It seems like you might have cut off mid-sentence there. If you were trying to get me to rewrite something, just paste the full text and I'll get to work on it. Just numbers. And they’re actually doubling down on this—I’ve already laid out the full explanation on the first page if you want to see how ridiculous this is. Honestly, obsessing over whether we can use hyperlinks during discussions here on Reddit is about as productive as campaigning against the use of electricity. It’s 2011, for crying out loud. 😁

I honestly think it’s just plain ridiculous that because some wannabe spammer showed up once, they feel the need to keep an entire website locked in a bunker forever.

Honestly, that’s their own fault; all those sites rightfully ended up in this mess specifically because of that aggressive spamming.

Besides...

Who says anyone is blocked? 😁

Did they at least apologize to the editorial staff after that incident? If they didn't, the administration has every right to keep them locked in the bunker. Looking at your detailed breakdown (thanks for that, by the way), it’s clear that in most cases, we're dealing with actual employees or contributors from these outlets. That’s a five-minute fix; any spammer popping up on the movie sub-section is spotted immediately and removed. They can make ten clones a day, but they won't last more than 24 hours (I've said much worse than this). Most importantly, the users themselves report them to the moderators.

@Tyndall

Just so some new kids don't accidentally use or abuse this information: spammers know exactly how to bypass your block on those specific links (let's not kid ourselves, even a smart six-year-old knows that), so the only real way to get one over on them is to add about fifty of the most popular 'URL shortening' services to the blocklist via the Admin Control Panel.

That’s just the starting point. 🙂

Let's circle back to this whole "problem-solution" loop from the beginning of the thread.

Obviously, a Random Redditor isn't gonna get screwed over for linking to one of those censored sites. But when you have members whose entire reason for being on this forum is just dropping links to their own news outlets, those are the ones who need to go.

So that none of this info gets accidentally used or abused by some new kids: spammers know how to bypass your block on those specific sites on the forum (let's be real, even a smart six-year-old knows that), so the only way to really get them is to add about 50 of the most popular 'URL shortening' services to the list via the Admin Control Panel.

Just to start with. 🙂

It's not a bad idea 😁. Honestly, personally, I never click links from URL shorteners because I have no clue what's hiding behind them.

Bradley Sanders4 said:From what I can gather, it’s not actually against the rules to use a URL shortener to link to a site that's been censored. I mean, unless you’re some spammer using the service to blast ads constantly until both the site and the service get blacklisted—which clearly happened to TinyURL—this hasn't been an issue before. Honestly, it shouldn't be either, especially since there isn't even a definitive list of which sites are officially banned. Personally, my biggest gripe with re-linking is the lack of transparency. I have no idea what I'm actually clicking on unless some Random Redditor tells me beforehand. When I click a bit.ly link, I'm flying blind. I don't know if it's taking me to the All the Way Down news site, a "So you've been bitten by a zombie" article, or some sketchy page loaded with malware. If I can see the actual URL, at least I can make an informed choice about whether to click or not.

And look, I'm not suggesting we ban fifty different URL shortening services. I'm just saying we should get rid of those pages that some guy used to promote through aggressive spamming from his basement.

Exactly. That's why I leave clicking bit.ly or whatever up to the users themselves.

And I'm not necessarily advocating for adding 50 URL shorteners, but rather for removing the sites that are...Some guy once was out there spamming aggressively from his basement bunker.

Once that becomes ancient history, we'll lift the block.

Christian Taylor3 said:It’s like people can still only see the trees and completely miss the forest for what it is. 😵

I’ve run into a bit of a problem.:

The Solution:

If we don't get rid of this whole "blacklist" of banned websites, people are just going to keep suffering.Look, I’m not saying anyone actually needs to see this, but apparently, we’ve got some unauthorized advertising going on again. Just a heads-up that if you're trying to hawk your services or drop links to your side hustles, it's strictly against the rules here. We aren't running a billboard in Times Square, so let's try to keep things civil and stick to the actual topics instead of turning the thread into a digital flea market.Honestly, I see people starting to suffer already, and it’s mostly just those random users who have absolutely nothing to do with all this spamming nonsense. For instance, little Mark might pop up on the Student Corner and write:

I’m not being malicious, rude, or lazy—I’m just a hyperactive dreamer. http://is.gd/NstpiF

... and I end up getting handed a pink slip just because of some "unauthorized advertising" nonsense, even though I didn't do a single thing wrong. See, the thing is, Who? I don't know what you're looking for, but if you were waiting for me to jump through hoops or provide some grand manifesto, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. I'm just sitting here, probably overthinking something trivial, ready to write whenever you actually have something to say. Where? Did someone actually tell him that posting links on The New York Times isn't allowed?

It seems like you might have cut off mid-sentence there. If you were trying to get me to rewrite something, just paste the full text and I'll get to work on it. Just numbers. And they’re actually doubling down on this—I’ve already laid out the full explanation on the first page if you want to see how ridiculous this is. Honestly, obsessing over whether we can use hyperlinks during discussions here on Reddit is about as productive as campaigning against the use of electricity. It’s 2011, for crying out loud. 😁

I honestly think it’s just plain ridiculous that because some wannabe spammer showed up once, they feel the need to keep an entire website locked in a bunker forever.

Honestly, that’s their own fault; all those sites rightfully ended up in this mess specifically because of that aggressive spamming.

Besides...

Who says anyone is blocked? 😁

Did they at least apologize to the editorial staff after that incident? If they didn't, the administration has every right to keep them locked in the bunker. Looking at your detailed breakdown (thanks for that, by the way), it’s clear that in most cases, we're dealing with actual employees or contributors from these outlets. That’s a five-minute fix; any spammer popping up on the movie sub-section is spotted immediately and removed. They can make ten clones a day, but they won't last more than 24 hours (I've said much worse than this). Most importantly, the users themselves report them to the moderators.

@Tyndall

Just so some new kids don't accidentally use or abuse this information: spammers know exactly how to bypass your block on those specific links (let's not kid ourselves, even a smart six-year-old knows that), so the only real way to get one over on them is to add about fifty of the most popular 'URL shortening' services to the blocklist via the Admin Control Panel.

That’s just the starting point. 🙂

Let's circle back to this whole "problem-solution" loop from the beginning of the thread.

Actually, not directly. As far as I know—and please correct me if I'm wrong, admins—nobody from the relevant parties wrote to the site editors saying, "Look, things were a certain way, our bad, blah blah." That apology happened through a single Redditor who stepped in, acting in good faith, to point out what one of them was doing. Personally, I think that’s more than enough; the main thing is that those spammers are gone. They serve their sentence, and after a while, posting links to the same portal should be allowed again under normal circumstances.

Anyway, I wanted to (somewhat belatedly 😁) touch upon this:

Without this 'blacklist' of forbidden sites, innocent users who have absolutely nothing to do with spamming will continue to suffer (I see they're already being penalized for 'unauthorized advertising'). For instance, little Mark might post on the
Student Corner
and get banned for 'unauthorized advertising' despite being completely innocent. After all, who told him (as a user) that linking to The New York Times isn't allowed?

Personally, as a moderator, I would never punish such cases, and I believe all other moderators and admins follow the same practice. Besides, Tyn and mistywolf17 have already clarified how things work so that these situations shouldn't happen. We always look at the user's intent. It’s one thing when someone posts a forbidden link (especially when they don't even know if it's allowed) during a discussion to clarify a point, provide an example, or just comment on an article (even though there are some foxes who manage to slip through that way), and it's quite another when they do it specifically to—well, spam.

Here is just one example from yesterday of how a user, in a perfectly normal discussion where linking or pasting articles is actually encouraged, posted a snippet from a censored portal (they didn't link it, but they pasted it and mentioned the site's name). It's not that I have anything against it; in fact, I find it quite helpful as it adds value to the conversation. And to be honest, this is probably one of the few texts (in a sea of rambling so-called "critics") that actually says something meaningful. You can tell the person writing it actually knows what they're talking about. I wouldn't dream of banning a user just because they included a link or pasted content from a currently censored portal here on our Reddit. 🙂

That gets sorted in five minutes; any spammer who shows up on the Film thread is spotted immediately and removed. They could make ten clones a day, and it wouldn't last longer than 24 hours (I've said this many times before). Most importantly, the users themselves report it to the moderators.

Of course, it’s the exact same situation when it comes to Music. 🙂

@mellowraven22, Samuel Morgan40

Thanks for the input, guys. 🙂

Straight Down, The New York Times, and the daily news outlets finally got kicked off the censored list.

mellowraven22 said:Straight Down, The New York Times, and the daily news outlets finally got kicked off the censored list.

I’m all for it. 👍

Exactly. 👍