Originally posted by robbie carrobie Can you cite a single case where a website that has utilised a disclaimer has been held liable for and prosecuted for the external content of links on its site by its users posting in online forums?
The problem isn't being held liable, the problem is being sued whether or not you're subsequently convicted. It's a hassle Russ doesn't need.
Originally posted by Shallow Blue Or upside, to those of us who actively choose not to over-burden our computer and our own attention with bells and whistles.
You're like a modern-day Ebenezer Scrooge, you know that? Always a "bah, humbug" for everyone on every subject.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem Yes. That, as always, is the major downside. Only a handful of people can be bothered to take the time to install browser extensions.
As you may have noticed some of us don't want browser extensions. It's not indolence it's antipathy. If it makes no difference to my experience of the site and does not affect download times or the amount of data downloaded, then I don't mind greasemonkey extensions being used for people who like lots of whizzbangs on their screen. If it's going to crash my browser trying to access the forums then I'm against it.
Originally posted by DeepThought As you may have noticed some of us don't want browser extensions. It's not indolence it's antipathy. If it makes no difference to my experience of the site and does not affect download times or the amount of data downloaded, then I don't mind greasemonkey extensions being used for people who like lots of whizzbangs on their screen. If it's going to crash my browser trying to access the forums then I'm against it.
My post was not meant to knock people who don't get browser extensions. It was saying that the downside of trying to make a site feature change via extensions is that most people don't use any extensions. That is all.
11 Mar '15 12:10
do you like REDHOTPAWN ?
Back to Top