RFC: Proposed comment policy change

Posted Nov 20, 2004 4:16 UTC (Sat) by bluefoxicy (guest, #25366)
In reply to: RFC: Proposed comment policy change by kh
Parent article: RFC: Proposed comment policy change

Yes, and I could design a P2E bot that would dredge the LWN subscriber content and e-mail it out massively to people who discovered how to control it; of course, then the LWAA would sense profit and allow me to continue unencumbered, while suing my 12 year old Indonesian female subscribers for $36,000/msg.

Subscriber only content is for subscribers only. I'm sure (knock on wood) Corbet doesn't have a problem with people occasionally going, "Oh, hey! Sam would think this was really really cool!" and e-mailing an article to a friend; but encouraging it would probably create a sudden balloon effect where half the world was mailing out every weekly edition to their office buddies regularly. Remember GmailFS; the same could be done with a Firefox extension to automate sharing LWN weekly with your friends. (or we could parse the page and do it, but why waste time, and why blatantly undermine policy?).

Want to invite a friend? Buy them a subscription.

RFC: Proposed comment policy change

Posted Nov 22, 2004 15:34 UTC (Mon) by kh (guest, #19413) [Link]

Yes, and I could design a P2E bot that would dredge the LWN subscriber content and e-mail it out massively to people who discovered how to control it

[SNIP]

I do not wish to be inflammatory, but what leads you to believe that it is not possible for a subscriber to create a program to do this now?

but encouraging it would probably create a sudden balloon effect

[SNIP]

I'm sorry, I am afraid I am confused... are we talking about encouraging bad behavior, or a technological control? I am afraid I can not understand either one as stated. I suppose this is really my fault for going offtopic. I understand that you may feel very strongly about this topic, but I was only offering my comments because I believe they would improve this site.