Image Policy Change

[chamber]

We've had some issues recently with hotlinked images causing pages of our site to be blocked by chrome because the images are from a site known to be compromised or to deliberetly distribute malware. As such the following image policy is going into effect:

If you are going to embed an image, make sure its from a good source. If you are unsure copy the image and reupload it to a reputable image hosting source like tinypic, imgur, imageshack etc. If any images you hotlink trigger malware warnings because of the sites they are hosted on, you will be held accountable.

[FuDuzn]

Why not just forbid hotlinking?

[chamber]

We are a relatively small site, so shouldn't be a significant BW drain on other sites. We don't allow the local hosting of images. I don't want to have to look at every IMG tag that gets posted to make sure its from an image hosting service.

At the end of the day though if you never want to get caught with your pants down you will need to always use an image service, so do so. You are rolling the dice everytime you don't.

[Mr. Flay]

We don't allow the local hosting of images.

Actually people can host on the wiki if it's something they want to be stable badly enough. Should only be used for GD-safe images though, since it's indexed, etc.

[Om of the Nom]

I came from a forum that was able to have images implemented in the posts as attachments. Is that possible to do on here?

[chamber]

I came from a forum that was able to have images implemented in the posts as attachments. Is that possible to do on here?

Software side, yes. I don't know if the server could handle the extra load though.

[CooLDoG]

What does held accountable mean exactly?

[chamber]

Some form of punishment I hope to never have to define now that I've told you guys to not be dumb? Perhaps a permanent ban from being able to use image tags?

[CooLDoG]

Okay. Thanks.

[Om of the Nom]

Well would we be given a warning first?

[IceGuy]

Looks like there's more from where "all signatures longer than four lines are automatically spoilered" came from.

[chamber]

Well would we be given a warning first?

If by warning you mean some kind of not permanent punishment? Sure. Don't expect to get away completely unscathed.

Looks like there's more from where "all signatures longer than four lines are automatically spoilered" came from.

Stopping our site from being flagged in association with malware is completely separate from forced aesthetic/readability changes. I may have disagreed with a large number of you about sigs, but respected you had grounds to argue from. You have no such ground here.

[IceGuy]

Stopping our site from being flagged in association with malware is completely separate from forced aesthetic/readability changes. I may have disagreed with a large number of you about sigs, but respected you had grounds to argue from. You have no such ground here.

Look, I understand why you want to punish somebody who links an image from malwaredistributornowaitactuallyimagesharer.ru or who linked an image from legitlookingsiteatfirstbutactuallyamalwaredistributortoo.com, got informed that it's a malware site, and keeps linking there.

But considering it's pretty much impossible to know for sure whether site X is distributing malware, and legit sites can get compromised and function as distributor of malware (or be falsely flagged as such), you're essentially punishing people for things they aren't responsible for.

I see the problem, and I would understand if you would introduce a policy such as "you may only hotlink to imgur, tinypic, and imageshack, everything else won't go through", and if one of those sites get compromised or eat a false positive, well, there's nothing you can do.

But the current situation of "keep linking but you'll be held accountable if something happens you aren't responsible for and couldn't prevent against" is, like the signature fiasco, one of the worst possible solutions to a real problem.

[chamber]

you're essentially punishing people for things they aren't responsible for.

Under the system as its been implemented there is something they could have done, used a reputable image hosting site. If Imageshack or tinypic or imgur get compromised, I'm not going to punish a large section of the userbase. If you use a random site you found through google and its compromised? Yeah thats all on you still.

[zoraster]

yeah. I don't even think chamber is talking about sites like xkcd or theoatmeal or penny arcade or whatever. I think he's talking about if you google "scary ass spider," find it on a random site called "megapicsupload" and directly link it.

[redFF]

Well I am outraged.

[Thestatusquo]

Seems legit.

[UberNinja]

No excuse not to just fucking use imgur.com

You click "web", copy the URL into the box, then click the upload button.
Or if it's a local image you just drag it into the window and click upload.

Voila, magic

[xRECKONERx]

min.us is pretty quick & easy too

[Cyberbob]

i mean hotlinking should probably just be banned completely, but this is good too. i cant believe there are actual human beings with human being brains that are arguing this

[AniX]

Peace, friends. Do not mistake chamber's actions for anything other than love for this site. Speaking as a member, I can see why you could be concerned that an accidental posting of a misaligned image could land you in hot water. As administrator, I can tell you that will never be the case. This message is only to make sure our site is always up and running for those who need to avail themselves of it, nothing more.

I know many of you are still twice shy because you've heard this sort of thing from the departed Great Tyrant mith. He'd sweet-talk you about necessity and then choke you with his iron grasp. It is not an unfound concern. But that era is over. A new era has dawned. Trust in your fellow members. Abuse will not be tolerated on this site, and that credo binds me and my administration as much as it binds any of you.

[Zachrulez]

Punishing people for unknowingly linking images from malware sites is stupid. If you're worried about the risk of hotlinking, then just ban it completely.

[zoraster]

no. this is a much better solution than removing hotlinking altogether.

[quadz08]

*shrug*

nooooot that big of a deal either way.

[zoraster]

it's a BIG deal to remove hotlinking, quadz.