I only say that assuming you are a trusted agent of Stack Exchange, and are able to legally communicate on their behalf.
None of us are, but from a legal standpoint (as moderators), let us assume we are.
By introducing warnings near every suspicious link, we are implying that we independently verify all download links on the website, even though it is not express implied in the terms of service.
Both implied and express terms DO hold up in a United States court of law, regardless of whether or not explicitly stated in the legally binding contract between the end-user and SE.
By moderating such links, you are acting as a legal communicator on Stack Exchange's behalf (by literally moderating and running the website).
I just finished writing a law exam, and in the textbook we read, there were many cases like this, where one party in a contract began to "offer" additional help to the other party.
It got to a point where such aid was even expected, as it occured so often.
And I'm gonna say this now: You gotta chill the **** out man. You've trolled everyone else's answer for no good reason. I'm not repressing your opinion, but don't try and claim that I'm pushing my opinion on others - that's clearly what you're doing, and NOT me.
You had that discussion under MY answer, not yours.
European courts have traditionally taken a much more "civil" approach to these types of litigation matters, placing more emphasis on "protecting the user". North American courts are more likely to take things "at face value".
The legal policy already exempts Stack Exchange from any liability arising from posted files.
It's not your job, nor are you required, to validate all download links on the website.
By doing so, you're creating that expectation I mentioned above.
Then I ask of you, why do you feel the need to place these warnings then?
(I'm not trying to troll, but it's really unnecessary - do we really want to "idiot proof" Stack Exchange?)
I see no way in which going out of your way to flag viruses for other people can be seen as a good idea. Leave that to the security professionals who make anti-virus software, or those researchers who do so.
And at that, how do you determine what is "safe" or not?
To protect relatives, to know that it's being inspected, to not have an overly long comment thread, to help the user reading the question, to ask the user that posted the executable what it does and why "machine code that's packed 5 times" is not malware, ...
Users blame software for malware, warning placed (you are free to suggest better wording, I made up some text for the meta) that it is inspected and moderator asked to remove comments, software is verified and outcome is placed in the comments after which warning is removed.
@Breakthrough That would require measurements and statistics to answer. :)
Yeah, but why would a botnet executable be provided if the user asked for an AutoHotkey application that automates something without internet activity whatsoever?
It's the mismatch in behavior that allows to draw a proven conclusion whether it does what is expected.
>> This is the internet. Post what you want, man (or woman!). Any blatant attempts at spreading malicious software (or other files thereof) will certainly be met with administrative action. Report any malicious files if you come across them.
Are you really going to take the time to verify every download link you see, then determine if it meets the OP's specifications, and THEN determine if it's malicious or not?
Why do you feel the need to do so? Wouldn't it be a much better use of your own time to moderate instead? Wouldn't it be a much better policy to LET THE USER DECIDE?
But you did address my approach in your answer, which is why I made a small comment to reflect upon that and then you made a statement which you didn't defend so far.
Which is why this whole thing is about ME wondering why that sentence talking about MY ACTION is stated in the legal terms.
I've already been done from comment five, where I saw you didn't elaborate.
@Breakthrough But I'm not communicating as a Stack Exchange official, that's the whole point. Even moderators aren't doing so, unless they are valued associates...
@Breakthrough That's what discussion is for, sharing our viewpoints. Not making false statements towards users about undermining legal terms when they do not (or you do not proof).
@Breakthrough Yet, it does not make me a representative. Merely an user of the service.
Besides privileges (and some subjective stuff like "experience" and what not) there's really not much difference between me and someone who joins the site this very moment.
Yeah - you're a troll trying to undermine the Stack Exchange legal policies. As a moderator, wouldn't it be a better idea to conduct yourself in a way consistent with said policies, instead of just claiming "freedom of speech" which allows you, legally, to undermine them?
@Breakthrough Yes, I feel so, but it does not change anything about my question to you.
> If you are not comfortable with the idea of your contributions being collaboratively edited by other trusted users, this may not be the site for you.
@Breakthrough Good idea, you were just enumerating what I should(n't) do. And honestly, I don't care as I'd rather choose to follow the guidelines and policies of SE...
