Dropbox links

[hotoldrguy]

This morning I found that all of the Dropbox links people posted have been changed and no longer work. Do you know why?

 

[XXVIII]

Found the same thing.
Tried replacing them and they are still not working.

 

[Micio_Lambire]

I tried replacing mine as well. Not sure if it's a Lit or Dropbox issue. Thinking Lit though as when I follow the link from Discord it works fine.

 

[UnquietDreams]

Lit seems to be editing the domain name out for dropbox. So ***********

 

[hotoldrguy]

Lit seems to be editing the domain name out for dropbox. So ***********

yep. I PM'd the AmPic Mod and they do not know what happened.

 

[SWR101]

Fun,

 

[SmokingFap]

Found the same thing.
Tried replacing them and they are still not working.

I replaced the drop box.com portion in one of my links and it worked fine. Still a pain in the ass, though. And I don't understand the reasoning behind censoring links like that.

 

[jaF0]

I haven't seen an example yet, but you guys have been told many, many, many times not to post explicit images or those you don't own the rights to. There is no exception for remote hosted images, no matter how you choose to misread the rules.

And no, this would not be the only, or first site to be blocked. I can think of several over the years. When one gets blocked, people seek out another to keep breaking Lit rules.

 

[SmokingFap]

I haven't seen an example yet, but you guys have been told many, many, many times not to post explicit images or those you don't own the rights to. There is no exception for remote hosted images, no matter how you choose to misread the rules.

And no, this would not be the only, or first site to be blocked. I can think of several over the years. When one gets blocked, people seek out another to keep breaking Lit rules.

I would bet that the vast majority of people who use Dropbox to share images or videos on here have the rights to do so. They aren't posting directly from image or video sites. For example, my Dicks of Lit compilations are my own work, incorporating submissions by members with their full and explicit permission, many via Dropbox.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

I would bet that the vast majority of people who use Dropbox to share images or videos on here have the rights to do so. They aren't posting directly from image or video sites. For example, my Dicks of Lit compilations are my own work, incorporating submissions by members with their full and explicit permission, many via Dropbox.

Yours makes sense and consent is very evident in that thread. I don’t think that is evident with many of the photos we end up moderating.

(I don’t always love that I look at sooo many pics and wonder if these women consented to the men posting them here.)

 

[hotoldrguy]

I haven't seen an example yet, but you guys have been told many, many, many times not to post explicit images or those you don't own the rights to. There is no exception for remote hosted images, no matter how you choose to misread the rules.

And no, this would not be the only, or first site to be blocked. I can think of several over the years. When one gets blocked, people seek out another to keep breaking Lit rules.

From what I understand of the Rules, It is ok to post links to images not on the Lit servers as long as only the url address appears in the post. That is one of the reasons many threads have (links only) in their heading. Also, Dropbox is simply a hosting service. Not ads not spamming, etc. Why block the entire site?

 

[Micio_Lambire]

So Dropbox is no longer allowed/permitted for linking? Because some sort of official notice would be lovely. Especially for those of who use it for their own pictures and in keeping with Lit's rules and regs regarding picture posting.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

From what I understand of the Rules, It is ok to post links to images not on the Lit servers as long as only the url address appears in the post. That is one of the reasons many threads have (links only) in their heading. Also, Dropbox is simply a hosting service. Not ads not spamming, etc. Why block the entire site?

The thing is, if you read the rules, they do not distinguish between images uploaded to Lit’s servers and images linked elsewhere. Years ago, mods did receive guidance that hosted elsewhere are okay as long as they aren’t depicting extremely graphic content, violence (further subjectivity here for the BDSM mod), underage, bestiality, and the like. But, the rules actually say that all images must follow all rules despite being hosted at Lit or elsewhere. Most of us continue to operate with the understanding I explained above, but it is an interesting question when members lose the ability to use certain hosting sites (which has happened before).

 

[jaF0]

From what I understand of the Rules, It is ok to post links to images not on the Lit servers as long as only the url address appears in the post. That is one of the reasons many threads have (links only) in their heading. Also, Dropbox is simply a hosting service. Not ads not spamming, etc. Why block the entire site?

No, it isn't OK to post those even as links. Not the way the rules are currently written. There has been some confusion over the years, but they seem quite clear to me.

You may not post any hardcore photos as defined in our Forum Photo Posting FAQ in the forum.

https://www.literotica.com/faq/forum/forum-rules



The three methods of posting an image on the Lit forum are as follows:

1. Attachments. These are user-owned images which are uploaded to our server by users. All attachments must be posted by a legal adult who owns the rights to the image as well as meeting our community guidelines and forum rules or they will be removed if brought to our attention. Accounts will be suspended for repeated violations.
2. Remote linking. These are images which are hosted on your server and displayed in your posts. As with attachments, they must always meet our guidelines and forum rules.
3. Avatars/Profile Pics. These are your images which you can upload to display on your profile page and next to each forum post or comment you make. As with the others, they are required to follow our guidelines and rules.

• Actual or simulated:

1. sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
2. bestiality;
3. masturbation;
4. sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
5. lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

• Per the above, we do not allow the posting of hardcore, dick pics, vagina closeups, sex toys being used, etc.

https://www.literotica.com/faq/forum/forum-thread-picture-rules


Those rules specifically prohibit the collection thread mentioned above. The red wording seems to be a recent update to the rules. I don't recall seeing it written just quite that way before. I know it says 'displayed' which to me still means the link URL appears even if the image itself does not without clicking the link..



I do not know if this is why the Dropbox site has been blocked or if was for some other reason. Admin has not advised us.

 

[jaF0]

So Dropbox is no longer allowed/permitted for linking? Because some sort of official notice would be lovely.

We all agree it would be nice to have notice, but that doesn't always happe.

Especially for those of who use it for their own pictures and in keeping with Lit's rules and regs regarding picture posting.

The thing is, people are NOT complying with the rules, even with their own images which are quite often explicit and graphic.

 

[hotoldrguy]

The thing is, if you read the rules, they do not distinguish between images uploaded to Lit’s servers and images linked elsewhere. Years ago, mods did receive guidance that hosted elsewhere are okay as long as they aren’t depicting extremely graphic content, violence (further subjectivity here for the BDSM mod), underage, bestiality, and the like. But, the rules actually say that all images must follow all rules despite being hosted at Lit or elsewhere. Most of us continue to operate with the understanding I explained above, but it is an interesting question when members lose the ability to use certain hosting sites (which has happened before).

So based on the rules, is this entire thread a violation of the LIT rules? (I am really trying to understand)
https://forum.literotica.com/threads/show-your-cock-links-only.1604519/

 

[hotoldrguy]

No, it isn't OK to post those even as links. Not the way the rules are currently written. There has been some confusion over the years, but they seem quite clear to me.

You may not post any hardcore photos as defined in our Forum Photo Posting FAQ in the forum.

https://www.literotica.com/faq/forum/forum-rules



The three methods of posting an image on the Lit forum are as follows:

1. Attachments. These are user-owned images which are uploaded to our server by users. All attachments must be posted by a legal adult who owns the rights to the image as well as meeting our community guidelines and forum rules or they will be removed if brought to our attention. Accounts will be suspended for repeated violations.
2. Remote linking. These are images which are hosted on your server and displayed in your posts. As with attachments, they must always meet our guidelines and forum rules.
3. Avatars/Profile Pics. These are your images which you can upload to display on your profile page and next to each forum post or comment you make. As with the others, they are required to follow our guidelines and rules.

• Actual or simulated:

1. sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
2. bestiality;
3. masturbation;
4. sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
5. lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

• Per the above, we do not allow the posting of hardcore, dick pics, vagina closeups, sex toys being used, etc.

https://www.literotica.com/faq/forum/forum-thread-picture-rules


Those rules specifically prohibit the collection thread mentioned above. The red wording seems to be a recent update to the rules. I don't recall seeing it written just quite that way before.



I do not know if this is why the Dropbox site has been blocked or if was for some other reason. Admin has not advised us.

The remote linking talks about displaying images not just the written link. Yes?

 

[jaF0]

So based on the rules, is this entire thread a violation of the LIT rules? (I am really trying to understand)
https://forum.literotica.com/threads/show-your-cock-links-only.1604519/

Almost all of the image threads technically violate Lit rules. It's just a matter of who sees them as to what action is taken.

 

[XXVIII]

Understood if it's due to rule violations.

 

[jaF0]

Keep in mind that we are in a time where there are a number of elements in various governments who would love to shut sites like this down. The rules distinguish between pictures/photographs and drawn artwork for that reason.



But also keep in mind, we're only speculating as to the reasons. We haven't been told directly either way.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

The remote linking talks about displaying images not just the written link. Yes?

That’s open to interpretation. I wish it were clearer. If the answer is just display the written link and not the image, that would be lovely.

 

[UnquietDreams]

I haven't seen an example yet, but you guys have been told many, many, many times not to post explicit images or those you don't own the rights to. There is no exception for remote hosted images, no matter how you choose to misread the rules.

And no, this would not be the only, or first site to be blocked. I can think of several over the years. When one gets blocked, people seek out another to keep breaking Lit rules.

Which I would understand, but I only host my own content, and honestly, none of it comes close to violating the TOS. No pornography, and not even fully nude from me. If I am circumventing a rule, it is the 1mb rule for pictures, and these are even being blocked in PMs. Since we can't host a picture in PM, and I understand the thinking I believe is behind that, I link. And almost every one of those not only adheres to the TOS, but almost all of them are things like me showing someone in Europe what the West Coast of the US looks like, without people, nude or otherwise, in the shot. And again, my own pictures.

And everyone I know that is using Dropbox is following the TOS. I am not a mod, so I will bow to their experiences -- is it such a huge issue that it needs to block a vanilla hosting sight en toto than deal with it on an offender by offender basis?

And do we even know that is the issue?

 

[jaF0]

but almost all of them are things like me showing someone in Europe what the West Coast of the US looks like, without people, nude or otherwise, in the shot. And again, my own pictures.

Those pictures could be uploaded as attachments without need for a remote host. You'd still be able to edit and delete your own posts. Image size might be an issue, but you can resize easily before uploading.

is it such a huge issue that it needs to block a vanilla hosting sight en toto than deal with it on an offender by offender basis?

Many individuals have been removed, or limited.

And do we even know that is the issue?

Not really. No.

 

[UnquietDreams]

Those pictures could be uploaded as attachments without need for a remote host. You'd still be able to edit and delete your own posts. Image size might be an issue, but you can resize easily before uploading.

I understand, but I am lazy. Also, as I understand it, we used to have the ability to find all posts we have made attachments to in order to control and delete as needed, but that option is no longer available. So I was able to do that host-side. If not, I will have to hunt down each one individually, which seems onerous.

Many individuals have been removed, or limited.

Which is as it should be. (I have moderated as well as working the IT end of a web hosting legal department, mostly chasing down fishing sites and CP).

Not really. No.

There is the rub.

 

[hotoldrguy]

I have still not heard a reason why Dropbox was singled out to be banned. Is there someone else I should be asking? I did send a PM to Manu, but have not heard back.