[Soberane]

I have been looking around some threads and saw a new one here:

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-42402.html

This is a problem

There should be a rule regarding the page that can be linked, especially when it comes to Gawker media sites like Kotaku, Jezebel, and others SJW sites, there are nothing more than click baits.

Here how to stop this:

Using Chrome, go to Chrome Web store and install "Awesome Screenshot" app.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/apps

It is easy to use and allows many features like capturing the entire page (the most common problem when trying to screencap), text highlight and more



After you install it, it should look like this on Chrome:


When you make a screenshot, the app will open the image in a editing page where you can use more tools for edition, when you are done, the image will be storage for a short period of time on a page and you can save the pictures in your computer at the same time.

Now just uploade the image to imgur, and link/post where you want in RVF

So, instead of linking click bait sites like Jezebel and give them pageviews, we can have this:

[tarquin]

Even though this may sound like a good idea, it is outside the bounds of "fair use" and is a copyright infringement. Let's not give the SJW establishment any sort of legal recourse for anything, ever.

[Barron]

(11-16-2014 02:04 PM)tarquin Wrote:  

Even though this may sound like a good idea, it is outside the bounds of "fair use" and is a copyright infringement. Let's not give the SJW establishment any sort of legal recourse for anything, ever.

that doesn't apply here since we're not using it for commercial use.

[Foolsgo1d]

Wouldn't this put strain on RVF servers with the amount of shit those sites churn out?

[Tuthmosis]

(11-16-2014 02:54 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

Wouldn't this put strain on RVF servers with the amount of shit those sites churn out?

Not to mention that, unless guys are meticulous about re-sizing, it will stretch out the forum so you have to scroll sideways too (like the OP's well-intentioned post did).

I don't believe in the tactic of depriving people of pageviews to make some sort of weak political statement.

That's a girl--and wimpster--technique.

[magellan]

My $0.02: I disagree with this being a girl technique as it has real monetary value. The question is how much traffic does RVF drive to these sites? Probably not enough to be worth the trouble.

Also... WB.

[AnonymousBosch]

Use Archive Today

Takes a capture of the page, holds it on their server, spits out a new link. It's based in Russia.

Let the Tech Wankers find out what its like to see someone else profit from your hard work for no reason, like Apple taking more money from the artist via ITunes.

[Hedonist94]

IMO, this is counterproductive.

It's in our best interests to encourage them to publish as many click-bait feminism articles as possible.

Click-bait is all about riling people up, and trolling them into visiting your website. It's a strategy to maximize short term profits. It's not a strategy designed to increase your ideological support base.

Case in point, "the #shirtstorm" article.

That article did more to convince ordinary people of the complete pettiness of modern feminism than most of the ROK articles combined.

[polymath]

(11-16-2014 03:05 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I don't believe in the tactic of depriving people of pageviews to make some sort of weak political statement.

That's a girl--and wimpster--technique.

I think the point is that depriving people of pageviews affects their bottom line, which is actually pretty competitive and masculine as far as techniques go. Hit em in the wallet, where it hurts. When a RVF poster links to an article by someone he detests, he's actually helping that person by giving ad revenue and boosting traffic numbers.

More importantly, why are guys on RVF reading Jezebel and starting conversations about things that they saw on there?

[runsonmagic]

I like where this is going, but I agree that screencaps may not be the best solution.

Does anyone have a good app or suggestion for blocking certain websites?

[Darius]

(11-16-2014 03:05 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I don't believe in the tactic of depriving people of pageviews to make some sort of weak political statement.

That's a girl--and wimpster--technique.

It's not about making some "weak political statement". It's economic warfare.

[AnonymousBosch]

(11-16-2014 11:05 PM)Darius Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 03:05 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I don't believe in the tactic of depriving people of pageviews to make some sort of weak political statement.

That's a girl--and wimpster--technique.

It's not about making some "weak political statement". It's economic warfare.

I'd agree with this, but I'd add page views also make the monsters..

Can't remember the exact stats now, but I said a while back any feminism article by Lindy West was good for between 40,000-60,000 page views for Gawker Media. This validates her as a reliable controversy generator for the site, and increases her brand name. It's entirely-possible a good third of those views are manosphere, right-wing, men's rights and 4Chan hate-reading her.

There was a confession linked on here recently where some men were trying to deliberately drum up controversy for an advertising client, and targeted Amanda Hess, because they knew she was emotionally-reactive, and would print any sex-related story without researching it closer.

Her outraged story expanded her brand as an upcoming feminist writer. Now, a couple of years later, she regularly vomits out Feminist Propaganda on The Huffington Post; WIRED; ESPN; The Magazine; NYMag.com; NYTimes.com; Slate; The Atlantic; Elle; the Los Angeles Times; NYLON; DETAILS; and the Village Voice.

Why feed the plants?

[redbeard]

I've been saying this...it makes it easier for us and they get less views.

Best way is to just copy the text and put it in your post. This way it'll be auto formatted by the forum.

[Cattle Rustler]

Sometimes I want to read it straight from the source, and read the comments. At times the comments are better than the article.

Not to mention, using Ad-Block for every single website helps. Loads faster and no ads.

[trian1]

(11-16-2014 02:23 PM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 02:04 PM)tarquin Wrote:  

Even though this may sound like a good idea, it is outside the bounds of "fair use" and is a copyright infringement. Let's not give the SJW establishment any sort of legal recourse for anything, ever.

that doesn't apply here since we're not using it for commercial use.

You are incorrect. It does not have to be commercial use to be a copyright violation. The original comment is correct. Wholesale copying is a violation of fair use, illegal and makes a hosting site legally liable for potential lost revenue.

This also applies to copying full text and pasting. Just because it is easy to steal content does not make it legal.

[runsonmagic]

I honestly just want a website blocker because every time I read a headline on an interesting subject, only to discover it's buzzfeed taking a social justice slant on my niche interest, I want to flame whoever posted the link.

[polymath]

(11-17-2014 12:06 AM)trian1 Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 02:23 PM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 02:04 PM)tarquin Wrote:  

Even though this may sound like a good idea, it is outside the bounds of "fair use" and is a copyright infringement. Let's not give the SJW establishment any sort of legal recourse for anything, ever.

that doesn't apply here since we're not using it for commercial use.

You are incorrect. It does not have to be commercial use to be a copyright violation. The original comment is correct. Wholesale copying is a violation of fair use, illegal and makes a hosting site legally liable for potential lost revenue.

This also applies to copying full text and pasting. Just because it is easy to steal content does not make it legal.

This is true for verbatim reproductions of the whole text.

Criticism and commentary are generally protected under fair use doctrine, and transformative reproductions (ie, cut and paste sections of the article interspersed with one's own commentary) are considered fair use.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Just use Archive Today.... it deprives feminists of views and ad income all the same, while not raping the forum with oversized images.