more on the ONTD moves

[charmian]

http://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?

Comments

[charmian]

That could be it, that ONTD has become more famous. I've heard that it's started to get cited as a source (even when it's copying stories; it's become a convenient aggregator for bloggers with higher profiles) by blogs associated with publications.

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.

[delphinapterus]

Most of the issues I see on LJ are pages not loading or the style tables only partially loading. The time-outs/not loading issues seem to be a pretty common complaint more so than the style table errors. It would be interesting to get more information on this but any posts about it by LJ management have been pretty vague about exact impact.

[charmian]

Yeah, I'm gathering these are the issues referred to in the maintenance post.

[(Anonymous)]

I've seen supermarket tabloids using ONTD as a source, after the original "source" was taken down. It happened with one of the Jon Gosslin pics and one of the ONTD mods.

[charmian]

I saw some ONTDers worrying about that, like whether now that the comm has ads, sources would become more aggressive about them rehosting the content.

[(Anonymous)]

Where did you see ONTD'ers worrying about that? I think it is an excellent point, once the sources see that they are using their content, and now LJ is getting money from it, the "sources," might start to get grabby!

I'm worried that this is going to lead to ONTD just becoming a gossip site on its own like any other!

[charmian]

Did you see the link in this post?

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.

[(Anonymous)]

That is a good question, because ONTD is already getting into situations where there may be a liability e.g a post getting through where someone intentionally incorrectly sources TMZ for a breaking new story. If ONTD reposts something gossipy, the original site takes it down, and ONTD becomes the source, who is the lawsuit going to target? LJ/SUP? The anonymous LJ'er who posted the story?

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.

[charmian]

Hard to say, but if ONTD takes it down, what is there to have a lawsuit about? (IANAL, so maybe there is something)

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.

[(Anonymous)]

IANAL either, but even if ONTD ends up taking something down, if they played a huge part in publicizing something, they may no longer be held to the standards of an internet site, but that of a media outlet. Media outlets retracting something must be a bigger deal than just "removing the story," they have post a formal retraction from what I would guess.

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?

[charmian]

If it's hearsay, though, how could they even post a formal retraction? As in, if I report "there are rumors that X did this, but I have no idea whether this is so," is this the same thing as saying "X did this"?

No idea... However, I would be surprised if ONTD hasn't attracted legal attention before.

[synecdochic]

If ONTD reposts something gossipy, the original site takes it down, and ONTD becomes the source, who is the lawsuit going to target? LJ/SUP? The anonymous LJ'er who posted the story?

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.

[charmian]

Thanks for the information!

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.