The secret is out and it's not pretty

[altivo]

Apparently LiveJournal has been using custom JavaScript code to modify some links on user pages dynamically when they are clicked. The action replaces the "affiliate ID" value in the link with another value. This doesn't affect all such links, but only those on a specific list of providers, including, apparently Amazon and EBay. The intent of this

Comments

[kint]

I think there was enough general outrage that there already pulling it. I think.

[altivo]

They say they're trying to do something about it. They don't admit it's happening, they don't apologize, they don't explain. This appears to be yet another LJ secret screwup that no one was supposed to notice.

The fact that there was a console command to at least partially disable the thing shows that it was intentionally coordinated for some nefarious purpose.

I don't use affiliate links, so I have no direct damages to claim, but I'm still furious at the sly manner in which this was done and the attempt to avoid dealing with it openly. All they need is for Amazon and EBay or other similar large corporations to come after them for fraud (because that's what this is) and they'll collapse like a punctured balloon.

[nekura_ca]

Just to clearify, the console command just sets a flag that has been around since 2005. And the flag seems to seems to have something to do with stats. And the bad affiliate codes are being added to the links on the outboundlink.net servers, not by LJ. It is possible LJ were looking for stats on what people were linking to, and just picked the wrong service to work with. I would wait for more information before joining the lynch mob.

[schnee]

It is possible LJ were looking for stats on what people were linking to, and just picked the wrong service to work with. I would wait for more information before joining the lynch mob.

That's my impression, too. They fell for a shady business of questionable legality, and ended up getting burned.

Hopefully they'll learn something from it, though. (Although I do admit that it's not easy to say that while keeping a straight face...)

[hrrunka]

Yeah, they've been called to task for similar activity in the past, so they really should have learned this particular lesson already...

[altivo]

Learning seems to be a concept that is as much beyond the present SUP management's capability as it was beyond the comprehension of the former SA management.

[altivo]

If LJ management had a better record of being honest and consistent, this might be an acceptable explanation. Since they have a very bad record of trying to pull sneaky crap and snooping into things that are not their business, I'm just not buying it.

In this case, their is actual financial loss to users connected with their actions. It is more than a "mistake." It's a colossal error that requires more explanation than just a little "oops, fixing now."