Comments: Boing Boing / Violet Blue notes

Which of the following two actions is the more reprehensible and should be subject to the greater opprobrium, and which, if any, should risk 5 year jail terms and a king's ransom in fines?

a) Exhibit a considerable lack of integrity by deletion of a commenter's previously acceptable posts without good cause.

b) Infringe the commercial privilege of a publisher's reproduction monopoly by promiscuously sharing a published CD in one's private possession without the copyright holder's authorisation.

Depending on your answer, either the law is an ass or you are. ;-)

Posted by Crosbie Fitch at July 3, 2008 12:45 PM

I'd bet it's for $$$ reasons - either they've been advised to de-link her (perhaps some SEO suggested it to increase their page rank or avoid a drop by Google for some searches) or they are trying to get big name/big payout advertisers onboard who objected to that kind of content and made they remove it before paying.

Now that I think about it, for the past six months there's been far less "adult" content/links on there?

Posted by ck at July 5, 2008 11:15 AM

"dewonderfuled" "boingy"

Hee hee, love it.

I think the BoingBoing writers have discovered that they're being held accountable, and it shocked the hell out of all of them. They had themselves God, but found themselves pigeons.

Posted by Shelley at July 5, 2008 09:31 PM

Crosibe: law and ethics aren't the same thing.

ck: No, that doesn't seem to be a factor. Everything indicates it's something "personal".

Shelley: There does seem to be an aspect of exactly that, though more at big fish in a small pond finding they were unused to dealing with anything other than plankton.

Posted by Seth Finkelstein at July 7, 2008 09:11 AM