more on the ONTD moves
Thursday, April 8th, 2010 01:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
charmianhttp://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/45713005.html?thread=7517858157#t7517858157
As previously discussed, ONTD has struck a deal with LJ, and here a maintainer (brenden) gives some hints on the nature of the deal.
So what is going on? There have been problems with ONTD exceeding the comment limit on LJ before, and high profile events causing ONTD to overload and take down the rest of LJ, but why now? IIRC there haven't been too many extreme celeb events going on now anyway, which is why it's odd that there are these problems now. So is it just the normal usage of ONTD that's causing this problem? (then why didn't this happen in the past?) Anyhow, it seems that moving ONTD to another server isn't going to solve the entire problem in and of itself; they've got to install new disks onto that server, and that will, according to the ops staff, probably resolve the issue.
So now, I wonder, will ONTD continue to grow? Perhaps even more than the rest of LJ. Is (English-speaking) LJ becoming more ONTD-ized, especially since now that ONTD has become monetized, SUP is thinking of dedicated development resources to it?
As previously discussed, ONTD has struck a deal with LJ, and here a maintainer (brenden) gives some hints on the nature of the deal.
So what is going on? There have been problems with ONTD exceeding the comment limit on LJ before, and high profile events causing ONTD to overload and take down the rest of LJ, but why now? IIRC there haven't been too many extreme celeb events going on now anyway, which is why it's odd that there are these problems now. So is it just the normal usage of ONTD that's causing this problem? (then why didn't this happen in the past?) Anyhow, it seems that moving ONTD to another server isn't going to solve the entire problem in and of itself; they've got to install new disks onto that server, and that will, according to the ops staff, probably resolve the issue.
So now, I wonder, will ONTD continue to grow? Perhaps even more than the rest of LJ. Is (English-speaking) LJ becoming more ONTD-ized, especially since now that ONTD has become monetized, SUP is thinking of dedicated development resources to it?
no subject
Date: 2010-04-09 06:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-09 06:27 am (UTC)I don't use LJ very much these days either, so I can't really say; if anything, my anecdotal observations are that it's stayed the same in traffic.
It's not really that ONTD itself isn't working only, it's that the entirety of LJ is experiencing issues, I think, and they are caused by ONTD (or partially caused by ONTD)'s popularity. I personally haven't been experiencing any problems either, but it seems that a lot of people who use LJ (and not only ONTD, but journals and comms totally unrelated to it) have been experiencing slowness.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-09 07:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-09 12:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-09 09:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-09 11:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-10 02:49 am (UTC)I'm worried that this is going to lead to ONTD just becoming a gossip site on its own like any other!
no subject
Date: 2010-04-10 02:52 am (UTC)Hmm, I have no idea, but as it gets more and more publicity, it will naturally receive more and more scrutiny. All gossip sites probably have to deal with lawyers and such, so I wonder if SUP knows what it's getting into by promoting ONTD.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-10 03:49 am (UTC)Right now it looks like the site is run by a bunch of college, or just out of college kids, who may not be able to handle a situation like that. Nor do I think the US LJ team would be able to handle a situation like that.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-10 03:54 am (UTC)Well, actually I'm sure the LJ Abuse Prevention team has dealt with accusations of defamation/libel before. However, as I understand it, if the content is taken down, the matter is generally dropped.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-10 04:08 am (UTC)The LJ Abuse prevention team has dealt with defamation/libel, but dealing with he said/she said on some people's journals is different than having to go head to head with a celeb's legal team? The legal teams behind places like a mega news corporation?
no subject
Date: 2010-04-10 05:38 am (UTC)No idea... However, I would be surprised if ONTD hasn't attracted legal attention before.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-10 05:24 am (UTC)Legally speaking, LJ previously would have section 230 immunity, and something that hasn't been brought up in all of this is that by hiring whatsisface as a LJ employee whose job it is to maintain the comm and post/moderate content, they may have just given that up. I don't know if they thought about it -- I hope they have, but I don't know what's up with their inhouse counsel (and if they even have inhouse counsel anymore).
Speaking as the owner of a site with section 230 immunity, I never would have taken on that liability. I'm really surprised they did.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-10 05:40 am (UTC)I do wonder to what extent he is an employee. He said he was 'joining the team' but he never explicitly said he was going to receive a salary, so it still remains somewhat unclear.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-09 04:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-09 07:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-09 09:46 pm (UTC)If it were "ad supported," it as is would easily survive on its own! ONTD posters tend to be the less LJ savy posers, newer to LJ, and more likely to sign on for a "plus account" for the extra icons. I've also noticed that ONTD'ers tend not to branch out into other areas of LJ, or even use LJ for its journaling service!
LJ needed to cash in on ONTD, and that it getting by on just a "paid account" was a bit of a joke. However I don't know what ONTD will now be like when it becomes a separate SUP service from LJ. Also ONTD as a content source? What type of content source will it be? Will it be a place where the lowest of the low in terms of paparazzi will be submitting their photos?
no subject
Date: 2010-04-09 11:18 pm (UTC)Yeah, I did notice that a lot of ONTDers don't use LJ for journaling, and use it just for the comms. If this trend continues, LJ may potentially be in trouble.
I don't really think that ONTD is becoming a separate SUP service, even if it is getting its own domain name (and what that'll look like is still unclear). They don't seem to be planning any changes in the actual way the comm is operated, so I'm not sure where you're getting the content source idea from?
no subject
Date: 2010-04-10 02:45 am (UTC)Most of the content isn't really "owned," it is stuff which is linked and reposted from all kinds of media outlets (not just blogs on wordpress, but big sites like TMZ, EOnline TV Guide) throughout the net. As long as there is a proper "source," which is linked to in the ONTD post it is okay to post it. As per the community's profile
However sometimes the sources of gossip are sketchy, or the sources at the original sites get deleted leading to a situation where ONTD becomes the "source." As I pointed out before, they managed to repost some Jon Gosslin pics off some source, linked to the source, and put up the pictures from it. The source took it down, and when the tabloids wanted to report the story after ONTD had released it, because the original source was gone, the ONTD post became the "source." ONTD ended up on the cover of The National Examiner. I think that the post was put up by one of the mods, so it wasn't considered that big of a deal. However I do wonder if it were just a random poster, who wasn't an ONTD mod if they might run into issues? Whoever is in charge of that site needs some serious legal/journalism training to know what would happen in a situation where something gets posted there, where money can be involved.
Heck a few weeks ago they had an issue where someone made a fake article about Betty White dying, and attributed it to TMZ. It started becoming the number one trending topic on twitter, and if a mod were not around to take it down, damage could have potentially been done. I don't know who would be liable if TMZ were to get pissed off and want to sue ONTD! Brendan quickly deleted the article and remedied the situation on twitter.
I'm thinking that as to the issue of who "owns the comm," it is probably LJ/SUP, and not the LJ user who originally stated the comm, who I don't think is Brendan. I suspect he may have just been the lucky guy who has been a maintainer the longest. Right now he is moderating the place with a team of other volunteer moderators, who were doing it for the glory of being ONTD mods. I wish I did know more about the history of the site and who the founder was. I think if the person who started the site on LJ, had stayed with it, there is more of a chance that they would have attempted to cash in rather than take a position with LJ and let them deal with everything.
Right now it is a "permanent account" on LJ, which means that it was probably like all other permanent accounts, but requires one of the site's entire servers to maintain, unlike other comms on the site. I suspect LJ TPTB may not have decided to do anything about it because they may have been worried about what would have happened if they stepped in. Also many of the ONTD users aren't traditional LJ users, and are willing to get a "plus account," just for the extra icons. However despite that, the resources required for maintaining ONTD are obviously far and above any other "permanent account" on Livejournal, so I can understand why LJ/SUP might want to "upgrade" it,and cash in.
Another issue I'm thinking about huge difference between a content provider and a content source. Being a site which is staffed by amateurs, I have no clue where they are going to get people to give them "original content." And if they are the suppliers of the content, instead of just rebroadcasters, how will the dynamic of the site be changed? Will the ONTD'ers be willing to stay there when it is just stuff from ONTD by ONTD, and not a one stop shop for celebrity gossip from all over the net.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-10 03:06 am (UTC)Yeah, I'm sure that the big gossip sites do probably have some legal help on retainer, because they will receive letters and such, and have to worry about slander/defamation accusations. It doesn't seem, though, from when Brenden said, that SUP is too worried about this aspect.
Brenden did say that SUP/LJ was talking like 'they owned the comm,' but I'm not sure whether SUP/LJ literally meant that they owned all of the comm content. I think SUP/LJ probably, according to their TOS, has the right to terminate service to ONTD if they break the rules, or even if they use too many resources, or possibly if the TOS is broad enough, if they feel like it. However, IIRC (I am not a lawyer, though), the actual (original) content of ONTD does not belong to LJ/SUP, but to whichever ONTD posters/commenters created the original content. That is, if you make a comment on ONTD or on LJ in general, you automatically own the comment, although LJ has a right to delete it, if you decide that you no longer want LJ to reproduce your content, you can revoke that as copyright holder.
Re: who "owns" ONTD. It's hard to say... Actually, what you bring up is a very interesting point, what Brenden (or the other maintainers) actually own. I think that the original content on ONTD (like the comments) is owned by the individuals who create it, but the name ONTD itself...? It's not trademarked, so I'm not sure anyone owns it, and there isn't a domain name. Does ONTD belong to LJ because it is hosted there? I really don't know, and I'm going to make a post about this issue.
Yeah, I'm also wondering right now about what the rights of the permanent account holders are, and whether there is some kind of clause in LJ's TOS which allows them to put ads on a permanent account should it be too big. However, I really do understand LJ's side in this instance.
Hmm, I don't think that ONTD is planning to go that route anyway? Where do you get that idea? I gathered they wouldn't change anything about the way that they posted.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-10 03:34 am (UTC)I think it has more to do with the fact that those are infamous, unscrupulous sites which violate people's privacy and post things like pictures of the children of celebs, who the celebs want to keep out of the limelight.
Hmm, if you read this post carefully, http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/45551046.html, it seems like they want to turn ONTD into a content provider, where they supply their own content.
The issue is that the majority of the content on ONTD is stuff which is reposted and republished. What I'm figuring is if LJ/SUP wonders if they own the rights to the Ohnotheydidnt name itself? I don't think any of the original ONTD'ers thought to buy the Ohnotheydidnt domain name for .com seems to have been taken up by some domain name snatcher. However whoever probably has the intention of selling it for the right price, and ohnotheydidnt.net is for sale to the highest bidder.
I think it could belong to LJ, I'm sure that once the revenue is raised, someone involved will be snagging up the domain name though! It should be very interesting to see what happens.
I understand it as well, ONTD has 100,000 posters and is a site within itself!
http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/45551046.html :
no subject
Date: 2010-04-10 05:40 am (UTC)I think it has more to do with the fact that those are infamous, unscrupulous sites which violate people's privacy and post things like pictures of the children of celebs, who the celebs want to keep out of the limelight.
Infamous, really? I haven't noticed anything of that sort from AfterEllen.com or AVClub.com, the two I quasi-follow. AVClub in particular seems to be mostly interviews/reviews, not celebrity gossip. And I can't turn up anything searching for criticism or privacy issues with AfterEllen.com.
And the Chicago Tribune is a major newspaper (and not a la The Daily Mail), which I kind of don't see publishing tons of celebrity gossip. Maybe they do, but it doesn't look like it from a glance at their website.
Plus I'm not sure a site that's willing to spread nude photos of celebrities really has a lot of moral high ground to stand on.
So I think there may be other factors playing into that rule.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-10 05:52 am (UTC)The Chicago Tribune, and AVClub might be journalistic outlets which aren't happy with ONTD re posting their articles, it could be a combination of different reasons.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-10 05:43 am (UTC)Yeah, just who, when the domain name is purchased, will be the legal owner of the domain name? (Which may or may not be the same thing as trademarking ONTD?)
Heh, I just sort of dismissed that part because it was so vague (hard to tell when people on ONTD are serious sometimes), as opposed to some of the other postings, which talked about the concrete features which ONTD would receive and what the terms would be. If that is so, however, that could potentially open them up to more liability (not sure who exactly, but repeating something vs being the first to report), and also, like you, I'm really not sure how they would go about doing that... I guess you as a member could ask Brenden? It's hard to read ONTD comments; did anyone ask what he meant by that statement?
no subject
Date: 2010-04-10 05:57 am (UTC)I think it all boils down to who buys it first!
I'm not that well known a member, however if you are on LJ, it might be worth PM'ing him and linking him to this thread. He is a "Big Name LJ'er," so he might not bite. On the other hand, we are raising some pretty interesting questions which would be nice to have answers to.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-10 06:09 am (UTC)Eh? I'm not a member at all... I think it would be better if you do it? I'm totally fine with this being linked to whoever.