Ban BrickFish Embeds

I wholeheartedly agree. In the 30 or 40 posts that I've seen, there has never been a single post/link from any journal or user to brickfish that has ever come from a legitimate poster / non spam journal source.

+1

Makes sense to me!

Yeah, the slippery slope argument is what kills me here. So we haven't found a legitimate BrickFish use yet - what happens when we do find one?

I'm not part of the APT, but I believe it has ways of dealing wxith new accounts created solely for ban/suspension evasion.

Message from Brickfish

Christopher,

Below are excerpts from my response to you back in January that you reference. We are here to work with you. Since we've last corresponded we've seen no complaints from any LJ users. We've had a positive dialogue with our members that were reported and we have not seen them post on LJ since. Thanks.

Chris

My first Post (1/3):
"I am an employee of Brickfish and wanted to apologize to you if any of our users have inappropriately been using your Live Journal group. Brickfish is a site that allows users to create, share, and discuss content they create while providing rewards and prizes for entries that the community or sponsors believe best represent the topic at hand. We do encourage users to share their entries with their friends and families on their social networks, blogs, and topical groups where they are active participants. We do not support or encourage users to randomly post their entries across the internet or on sites/groups where they have no affiliation or relevancy. When we are notified that someone is abusing members or the privileges of other websites, we attempt to contact that user to relay the complaints we have received, as well as, provide them examples of basic net etiquette.
With that said, I do ask that you support and allow members of your groups that are also Brickfish entrants to continue posting, discussing, and sharing entries that are relevant to your group’s charter. For example, if we have a campaign around photography, you may find that many of your members will want to openly and actively participate.
I look forward to working with you, keeping the dialogue open, and making both of our communities’ better places. Please feel free to reach out to me in the future with any comments or concerns about Brickfish. Thank you for your time.


My Second Post (1/3):
"It's disappointing to see a group that defines its mission as "The community is designed for everybody. Anyone can join, and anyone can view. I would like for everybody joining to have a few pictures they wish to contribute, however, there are no specifications. You may join even if you do not take pictures, or can not post pictures" be closed to the medium of the content and not appreciate and value the content itself. This is much the same as a Live Journal group around video with YouTube embeds, whereas, here you have a Photo group with photo embeds. I'm also surprised that you feel your members aren't interested in winning money for their photographic talents.

We support Live Journal users that want to share their entries in groups they are active in. We support and embrace people forming communities to share and discuss their passions. We do not spam, do not condone spamming, and we address it appropriately. We try to educate rather than ban. We do take action on users that violate our Member Guidelines, but we can't take action on sites we do not control. I reached out to you and your group in an effort to apologize, let you know we take your complaints seriously, and let you know how we try to address the issues you raise. Thanks.

Chris
Membersupport@brickfish.com

Re: Message from Brickfish

Since we've last corresponded we've seen no complaints from any LJ users. We've had a positive dialogue with our members that were reported and we have not seen them post on LJ since. Thanks.

With all due respect, I don't believe you.

The spam continues. Saying that you've had no complaints doesn't change that fact.

Re: Message from Brickfish

I'm sorry you don't believe me, but I also understand that we have to earn your trust. So how can we work together to make it better? I also want to fully understand your position. Are you suggesting that if a post of a photograph, work of art, video, or blog meets the requirements and conditions of a Live Journal group, it is spam because it was posted using Brickfish as the tool to upload it? If the same photo, work or art, video, or blog was posted directly in Live Journal it is not spam? Thanks.

Chris

Re: Message from Brickfish

Put simply:

What users do in their own journals is their own business. Full stop.

What users do in communities must follow the rules of the community. In the vast majority of cases, people are creating throw-away LJ accounts and posting BrickFish videos indiscriminately in communities. These posts are either completely irrelevant to the community or tangential, at best. Those doing the posts become members of the community for the sole purpose of spamming the videos and never return. Their accounts are often flagged as spammers and removed, but by then the damage is done.

If a post meets the criteria of the community, it is not spam. I have yet to see a single BrickFish post in any community that meets the criteria of the community. The vast vast majority of posts are, indeed, spam.

You've said that you won't discipline users for doing this, therefore a ban is in order.

Your service exists for the sole purpose of marketing.

So how can you make it better? Simple: Make it a term of service that any post of any video to any community where the maintainer of that community marks it as spam results in the cancellation of that user's BrickFish account and forfeiture of all money they've accrued to date. Make the penalty for misuse swift and severe.

If you're not willing to do that, that's all we really need to know.

Until or unless you police your users, my call for a ban stands.

Re: Message from Brickfish

Complaints or anything else you can say don't matter, because as far as I can tell (but I'm no lawyer), in the end, Brickfish's content is not allowed according to LiveJournal's Terms of Service:

You agree to NOT use the Service to:

7. Upload, post or otherwise transmit any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation;

Brickfish may not be doing anything wrong, but its members seem to be, at least on LJ.

Re: Message from Brickfish

Well, if there's a place on LJ, such as a community devoted to the purpose, that does solicit and authorize advertising and promotional materials...

Re: Message from Brickfish

People are uploading their own content. They are the same types of photos uploaded to LJ directly. It's the same as using You Tube as a platform to upload your own video content. We are a platform that allow people to upload their own pictures and videos.

+1

Agreed. They violate ToS, I don't see any reason why they should be allowed to stay up.

The misuse of the service violates the TOS, not just "They." A YouTube link can violate in similar ways.

The purpose of the service is to earn money by posting ad links, so this isn't the misuse of BrickFish, it's the intended use. Not all YouTube links earn the poster money; the few which do can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

No -- if BrickFish users get compensated in any way for the actual act of posting an asset, or based on how many people view their asset, the very act of posting that asset itself is a violation of LJ's ToS.

Let's talk about a hypothetical "nothing could be wrong with this" asset -- a picture of a red square. No ad, no branding, no advertisement. If I uploaded a red square to BrickFish and they were going to pay me $.01 every time someone saw it, or provide me other considerations such as proportional entry into a drawing (one entry for every click/hit/pair of eyeballs, etc) it'd still be a ToS violation to post that red square to LJ. Technically it's a ToS violation to post it anywhere, including my own journal, though posting stuff like that in your own journal usually winds up being the "jaywalking" of the LJ ToS -- technically a violation, but nobody's going to gig you for it. Posting to a community, though, is different, because cambler is correct; the number of extra potential eyeballs (profit) in a community is greater, and so there's an economic incentive for peeing in the pool.

YouTube has no such compensation, and therefore it wouldn't be an inherent violation of the ToS to upload a video of a red square to YouTube and post it. Sure, a YouTube embed can violate LJ's ToS. But BrickFish appears to be designed to violate LJ's ToS, much like PayPerPost and other such systems.

+1

Doesn't that somehow sort of fall under the category of advertising on your journal to earn money? Which isn't allowed.

+5

100%

You know what I want that would solve this problem? Solve it for me, at least. I want the ability to have the "video placeholders" appear on my friends page instead of embedded content, but have embedded content appear on my own journal. Right now it's everywhere or nowhere, but I'd like the distinction.

I support the elimination or banning of Brickfish content 100% in communities or where Livejournal Terms Of Service is voilated. Brickfish is nothing less than spam designed to fool the ignorant into interaction for commercial purposes.

I hate advertising in its general, broadest sense. I agree: banish them to the land of dust and ghosts!

+1

Y'know, I was actually a bit dubious about this one - I hate marketing and loathe marketeers, but I don't like banning or blocking either. Yon apologist brickfishdotcom has changed that completely with hir egregious misrepresentation of their "service" and behaviour; way to go, there: you've achieved exactly the opposite of what you (presumably) intended with at least one person.

I've been thankfully ignorant of them, but after reading the above, I agree with banning brickfish embeds 100%.

My experience exactly.