Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

SI - Site Forums : Questions and Answers with SI Admin (s) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pcstel who wrote (3803)	10/19/2012 8:50:54 PM
From: Mark Marcellus	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4890

First of all, I believe you are mistaken. In the very early days of SI.. and I have verified this with a couple of the older members. Silicon Investor was a "browse for free" web site aka "lurkers". It was however, "pay to play" so to speak. So in order to write a post, you had to "subscribe" to either a semi-annual, annual, or lifetime membership.. The option to purchase a "lifetime membership" was $200. That is incorrect. Originally there was a mildly onerous, but free, registration process. As it happens, I joined for free in February 1997, about 1 week before the model was changed to charge for membership, and was thus grandfathered as a free member. This is one of the few instances where my investment timing was impeccable.

To: pcstel who wrote (3803)	10/19/2012 9:53:05 PM
From: SI Dave	13 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4890

SI has passed through multiple asset sales, i.e., sales of the assets and not the liabilities. So that argument is moot. Moving on, as I recall the genesis of this issue was a posting reaction on a single board? That is clearly permitted in the Terms of Use. Even setting aside all of the above, SI and all US-based interactive websites have a broad federal immunity from liability arising from their decisions and methods used to publish, not publish or withdraw from publication third party content, pursuant to 47 U.S. 230. Post removals, posting limitations and account termination are all immunized activities, so again, the entire argument is moot. In the end, there is nothing to be gained by debating SI's rights to operate its property as it deems appropriate. If a user wishes to revisit some posting restriction, their sole recourse is to take that up privately with the appropriate staff. As I mentioned previously, they prefer inclusion over exclusion. FWIW, Dave

To: pcstel who wrote (3803)	10/20/2012 12:28:31 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	8 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4890

Since you are into analogies, say you had a really nice pool and allowed your friendly neighbor to pay you for lifetime use of it as long as he "behaves", a term you leave open-ended since you can't possibly cover every thing that might offend you in a contract. One day you catch the guy out there skinny dipping, which freaks out your wife and daughters. Do you not have a right to tell the guy to clean up his act or get lost? Let's further say you decided to finally sell your house. I highly doubt you would see any benefit to putting in a restriction on the buyer that he has to honor your swimming pool deal with your neighbor. And surely you don't think the new buyer has to honor said contract you agreed to not him? Or, for that matter, that the new buyer should also allow your relatives to crash in what is now his house when they are in town like they did when you owned it, right? Kinda common sense I would think. - Jeff