-76

Update (21 Nov 2023):

We're rolling back this change to the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP); we will revise it and route it through the moderator review process as should have done. If you have further questions, please ask them on the linked post above. ~ Slate


As part of our ongoing efforts to review and update policies, we’ve updated our Acceptable Use Policy. There are several reasons for this, but the main ones are: to make the language more clear and to include things that we identified were missing as part of the CoC update.

For the opening three paragraphs, we’ve reworded them all but particularly the second one for clarity and to be more in line with what we do.

Used to Read Now Reads
The intent of this document is to clarify what we consider to be acceptable use of any website or service provided on the Stack Exchange Network (collectively "Stack Exchange", "Network"). The intent of this Acceptable Use Policy (“AUP”) is to clarify what we at Stack Exchange, Inc. (“Stack Exchange”, “we” or “us”) consider to be an acceptable use of any website or service provided on the Stack Exchange Network.
If you are found to be in violation of any of the below policies, you will receive a notice via email. Unless you explain or correct your behavior within 72 hours, your account will be suspended. We will do our best to work with you and ensure a fair outcome in all cases. We reserve the right to immediately suspend, without notice, any content, account, or IP address which we determine to be submitting spam or other potentially damaging or disruptive content to the Network. If you are found to be in violation of any of the below policies, your account may be suspended or terminated, and we may otherwise block your access by other means. We will do our best to work with you and ensure a fair outcome in all cases. We reserve the right to immediately suspend or terminate, without notice, any content, account, or IP address which we determine to be in violation of this AUP. Please note that while we will make best efforts, in the event that infringing activities are suspected, we may take certain preemptive actions in an effort to protect our systems and other users. You may request an appeal via our contact form.
When your account is suspended, public access to content contributed under that account may be blocked or removed, and your account may be suspended or deleted at our discretion. Access to other functionality or information within the Network may also be blocked or disabled. If your account is suspended, public access to content contributed under that account may be blocked or removed, and your account may be further suspended or deleted at our discretion. Access to other functionality or information within the Stack Exchange Network may also be blocked or disabled.

We've also reworded illegal use and spam to reflect what we mean by these more accurately.

Used to Read Now Reads
Illegal Use. Stack Exchange may not be used for illegal purposes. Examples of this include using Stack Exchange for fraudulent purposes or operating a phishing site (used to obtain account and password information). Illegal Use. The Stack Exchange Network may not be used for illegal purposes. You are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations, whether or not such illegal purposes are explicitly raised in this AUP or our [Code of Conduct Policies].
Spam. Users that do not publish meaningful content, use deceptive means to generate revenue or traffic, or whose primary purpose is affiliate marketing, will be suspended. Spam. Adding content (or adjusting existing content) whose primary purpose is affiliated marketing (e.g., to promote a product, service, or similar in a way that is unsolicited or lacks disclosure of affiliation) or using deceptive means to generate revenue or traffic

We've added sections detailing Phishing, Doxing, and Malicious URLs as prohibited behavior.

Phishing. Posting malicious content, or social engineering behavior to fool people into giving information they would otherwise not, such as passwords, API keys, or personally identifiable information.

Doxing. Disclosure of personally identifiable information of a person or group of people, whether or not that information is accurate.

Malicious URLs. Posting a link created with the purpose of promoting a scam, attack, or fraud.

Identity Theft and Privacy, and Hate Content, Defamation, and Libel were largely left untouched, while we've further made changes to the descriptions below.

Used to Read Now Reads
Disruptions and Exploits. We will terminate accounts and block addresses of those who attempt unauthorized use of the Stack Exchange Network. Disruptions and Exploits. Attempted or unauthorized use of the Stack Exchange Network.
Copyright. Using copyrighted material does not constitute infringement in all cases. In general, however, users should be careful when using copyrighted content without the permission of those who created it. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement sent to [email protected] that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). Unauthorized Use of Intellectual Property. Posting content that infringes on another’s intellectual property right, including trademark, copyright, patent, trade secret, or other intellectual property right. Note that using copyrighted material does not constitute infringement in all cases. In general, however, users should be careful when using copyrighted content without the permission of those who created it and adhere to any license requirements (e.g., attribution, notice, etc.). It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged intellectual property infringement sent to [email protected] (e.g., the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA")).
Mass Registration and Automation. Accounts that are registered automatically or systematically will be removed and access will be permanently suspended. Mass Registration and Automation. Accounts that are registered automatically or systematically.
Sexually Explicit Material. Accounts that use Stack Exchange to post sexually explicit or pornographic material, or links to it, will be suspended. Sexually Explicit Material. Posting of content or posting links to content that is sexually explicit or contains pornographic material, including the sexual exploitation or abuse of minors.

And also added a Framing and Scraping clause specifically forbidding those practices.

Framing and Scraping. Frame or mirror any Stack Exchange Network website without Stack Exchange's express prior consent. Use any automated or non-automated data gathering means (including but not limited to robots, spiders, scrapers, crawlers, and the like) to gather any text, files, audio or visual media, profile information, or any other content from any Stack Exchange Network website without Stack Exchange's express prior consent.

8
  • 2
    About the last paragraph, does it include scraping one's own contributions?
    – J-J-J
    Nov 21 at 10:52
  • 48
    @J-J-J yes, there is no exemption there, so yes. And note how it is not about scraping but about any kind of re-use r even copying ("any automated or non-automated data gathering"). So nobody can copy anything out of SE. In fact, if we take this literally, nobody can even read anything on SE since reading is gathering data. So this effectively renders the network write only.
    – terdon
    Nov 21 at 10:57
  • 14
    Manual data gathering may be allowed for a small fee, perhaps. Just gotta rebrand the company into EE first. Nov 21 at 11:12
  • 1
    @terdon (+1). Indeed nothing in the text suggests that this use case benefits from an exemption. Too bad if that's the case, but I was wondering if something else in the terms of use allowed that, or if this is something they didn't think of (would be surprising, though) and were inclined to change. If this is confirmed by someone from the staff, I'd certainly send them a message to get permission to scrape my own content... but what a pointless waste of time for everyone. Of course, this may be a secondary point compared to the other issues raised in the answers.
    – J-J-J
    Nov 21 at 11:14
  • 23
    I'd love to know what sort of "lawyer" SE Inc. is using, considering that multiple people with zero education in law were trivially able to identify how the scraping clause in this updated agreement literally prohibits people from using their own contributions, which is such an obviously fundamental flaw that it boggles the mind.
    – Ian Kemp
    Nov 21 at 17:33
  • 13
    My advice: scrape the section about scraping. The content isn't yours and will never be. After so many years still this misconception. Nov 21 at 21:36
  • 2
    @IanKemp perhaps the lawyers see the term "Intellectual Property" only in a corporate private property sense. Who does own shared property? Nov 22 at 9:57
  • 5
    Forbids bots; doesn't update robots.txt to forbid bots. Pick one.
    – Ian Boyd
    Nov 23 at 14:18

5 Answers 5

208

Use any automated or non-automated data gathering means (including but not limited to robots, spiders, scrapers, crawlers, and the like) to gather any text, files, audio or visual media, profile information, or any other content from any Stack Exchange Network website without Stack Exchange's express prior consent.
(emphasis added)

This would prohibit anyone, at any time, ever, from quoting any Stack Exchange post that exists or will exist in the future.

This seems to be in direct opposition to the Creative Commons Share-Alike license(s) that user-contributed content to the Stack Exchange network is posted under. Under the terms of that license, the content posted may be reproduced elsewhere so long as attribution and a link to the license are provided.

Stack Exchange does not own the copyright to user-contributed content. They have a license to use and distribute that content. This seems to be far overstepping that license and appears to be actively trying to curtail the rights granted by the Creative Commons license, in direct opposition to both the network's founding philosophy of free, accessible information and the text of the license.

12
  • 66
    Or even to use assistive technology to read posts, such as the Reader View in Edge... Nov 20 at 22:26
  • 5
    The Creative Commons license does allow for people to restrict how content is accessed. It only applies once the content has been accessed. However, there are historical arguments regarding more open access, even to scrapers. I brought this up myself when asking why Amazonbot and GPTBot were blocked in robots.txt. The precident is that only misbehaving bots were blocked. This appears to be a way to limit access to training AI models, but without consulting users on if that is what we want. And that is a discussion that needs to happen. Nov 20 at 23:05
  • 28
    Which would be fine if it were prohbiting automated scraping, @ThomasOwens, although it would render the API useless. This forbids manual gathering of any text. That's not restricting how it's accessed, that's restricting usage.
    – Mithical
    Nov 20 at 23:10
  • 18
    Oh. I see. I missed the "non-automated" portion. So, yes. This doesn't match up with the license, since it effectively prohibits copy/pasting. I guess that means the only way to use SE content is to retype it manually and then cite it, and that seems stupid and useless. Especially for code. Nov 20 at 23:13
  • 4
    They probably (I hope? :D) didn't mean that but the wording is terrible. Nov 20 at 23:42
  • @ThomasOwens Even manually typing it could be argued as "non-automated" data gathering. Without a clearer definition of 'data gathering' its not clear if it even possible to use the site without violating it Nov 21 at 1:23
  • 14
    @user1937198 No, no. You’re describing data transformation. Once your eyes have uploaded the curves of the glyphs to your brain, you are acting as illegal storage of this forbidden and secret information! By the command of SE, you will have to cease to exist! Or visit Dumbledore’s office, move the memory out of your head, and destroy it. Don’t try the other method. We all saw what happens. Nov 21 at 1:45
  • 5
    @ThomasOwens even if you memorize it then retype it, it's still a non-automated data gathering means
    – Someone
    Nov 21 at 2:11
  • 10
    I would say this happens even before gazing upon the text. A web browser will load the content, gather the text, and create a temporary copy of the page in computer memory. It can then be used to save the page, if desired, without fetching it again. SE should block these web browsers immediately, as they are clearly tools specifically intended to violate the AUP, and no-one can use such a tool without violating the AUP.
    – Erik A
    Nov 21 at 9:53
  • 23
    Reading is a primary way of "data gathering" so this renders the SE network write only with nobody having the right to read anything since that would constitute gathering data.
    – terdon
    Nov 21 at 11:06
  • 2
    I suspect they'd have a hard time arguing that data gathering includes merely copying from one post (as "gather" means to bring multiple things together). But I'm not a lawyer, and I wouldn't want to hire one in case Stack Exchange decides to push their luck on this clause. But this is also an odd clause given that they provide data dumps. So they can gather it and make it freely accessible to everyone, but you aren't allowed to gather anything yourself?
    – NotThatGuy
    Nov 21 at 16:16
  • @ThomasOwens "This appears to be a way to limit access to training AI models, but without consulting users on if that is what we want." This doesn't require our explicit permission, as long as the models are released under the same CC BY-SA license...
    – endolith
    Nov 27 at 20:36
113

Revising based on Slate's comments, and to give a better outline of all the issues and questions based on the now-posted and live AUP. See previous revisions for the original content.


This was posted on the Stack Moderators team at about 12:30 pm Eastern on 20 November. This was about 2.5 - 3 hours before being posted here, on Meta SE. No "orange diamond" notification was sent out to moderators. This is a violation of the post-strike agreement between the moderators and the company, which requires 7 business days to review and comment on policy updates and the associated public communication.

This has already been acknowledged as a "process miss" by the company.


The overall policy is very unclear. The first sentence says that the policy is supposed to "clarify what we at Stack Exchange, Inc. ... consider to be acceptable use of any website or service provided on the Stack Exchange Network." However, most of what follows is definitions, and of things that are likely to be unacceptable. The sections "Spam", "Phishing", "Doxing", "Malicious URLs", "Unlawful Speech", "Disruptions and Exploits", "Unauthorized Use of Intellectual Property", "Mass Registration and Automation", "Sexually Explicit Material", and "Framing and Scraping" only exist to define terms and concepts. Only the "Illegal Use" and "Identity Theft and Violating Privacy" sections are explict about what is not allowed.

I believe the intent is to list unacceptable uses of the network. But that isn't clear. The second paragraph does mention violating "below policies", but the below sections are mostly definitions and not policies - most do not say what to do or not do.

My recommendation would be to revisit the presentation and make it more clear that the sections and their definitions all outline things that are unacceptable on the platform or unacceptable uses of the platform.


The definition of spam has substantially changed, without discussion.

In the previous version of the AUP, spam was much broader and included all cases where users published content that was not meaningful. This version of the AUP greatly narrows the definition of what spam is to focus primarily on sales, marketing, and revenue generation.

We do have tools to deal with content that doesn't belong, and those tools aren't limited to staff or even elected moderators. The Terms of Service, Code of Conduct, and Help Center all get into the removal of content.

Although I'm not seeing a potential problem at the moment, changes like this are why things should go through a review cycle with the moderators to ensure that this won't be problematic to someone or to be able to answer questions that come up from our respective communities.


The "Framing and Scraping" section is extremely contentious.

Mithical points out that the text is overly broad and includes copy and pasting text as a prohibited activity, since it's a non-automated data gathering method. I suspect that no one expects everyone to obtain the company's consent to copy material, especially since copying (with appropriate attribution) is a central right granted by CC-BY-SA.

Going to automated means, it also seems like it would prohibit submitting SE pages to the Wayback Machine. Blocking the Wayback Machine from archiving pages can reduce access to content.

Previously, there have been technical solutions put in place to block crawlers associated with training algorithmic models. I suspect that this is a policy version of those to catch any cases that aren't currently blocked by the technical solution. However, I argue that making the decisions to generally block crawlers (that are well-behaved and don't cause issues for the broader network and its users) goes against the general spirit of open-access as well as the agreements made following the strike to commit to transparency and to work with the community to make decisions regarding the product and policy.

We're still waiting for more information about the "guardrails" around the API, Data Explorer, and data dumps to limit access to companies constructing language models, for one example. If this is related, perhaps we should have these details and discussions before implementing product and policy changes.


I propose that these changes be rolled back, this post shared on the Moderator Team with the appropriate notification, and then comments and questions incorporated into the notice. Although I understand that, as a legal agreement, there may not be much room to change it, there's something to be said for following the agreed upon processes and upholding the company's end of the agreement.

15
  • 14
    "Was this given to moderators for review prior to posting here?" It was posted 3 hours ago, so it didn't really have the chance to get any feedback.
    – Laurel
    Nov 20 at 21:26
  • 36
    @Laurel There was no orange diamond notification. And the agreement is 7 business days, which would put the earliest posting on Meta SE on the 29th or 30th, depending on SE's Thanksgiving holiday schedule. Nov 20 at 21:28
  • 1
    The definition you've used (regarding "not meaningful content'' for spam) is how the Acceptable Use Policy used to describe spam. The new description is under the "Now Reads" section, "Adding content (or adjusting existing content) whose primary purpose is affiliated marketing (e.g., to promote a product, service, or similar in a way that is unsolicited or lacks disclosure of affiliation) or using deceptive means to generate revenue or traffic"
    – Spevacus
    Nov 20 at 21:35
  • 1
    I'm guessing that the company wanted to just add the final addition, but after having the whole document reviewed by their lawyers, they pointed out several other changes and pushed them through. Nov 20 at 21:36
  • 1
    @Spevacus Yes. The new definition of spam is much more narrow. That affects moderation. Nov 20 at 21:41
  • 22
    @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog Doesn't matter why. There's an agreement for a moderator review period and nothing here is so time sensitive that it couldn't wait a week for review and questions from mods before going public. Nov 20 at 21:47
  • 36
    Your point is a reasonable one. I looked into this when I was made aware of this policy change earlier today. We are treating this as a process miss - it was not a deliberate decision to skip the agreed-upon community review step, and I am immediately revising a portion of our release process to prevent future misses of the same root cause. Philippe has addressed the need for compliance with the concerned folks on our team, and we have reminded the Legal team of our obligations under the agreement as well.
    – Slate StaffMod
    Nov 20 at 22:20
  • 19
    @Slate So...what are the next steps? I see two problematic changes: the definitions of "spam" and "framing and scraping". Others may find more. These are questions and concerns that would have been found in a mod review and then addressed, probably by giving clarity in what would have become this Meta post. But because this is already live, by using the service, we're already agreeing to them. How do we fix this issue here? We've already had several misses since August. Nov 20 at 22:57
  • 27
    @Slate If this is acknowledged as a failure, how about we treat it as a failure, and revert and then implement it following the process? Or will there be any other visible consequences of the apparent disregard of the process by company actors external to the community team? That would demonstrate that the company cares about the process and by extension the community. Nov 21 at 0:15
  • 20
    @Slate It's never a deliberate decision to mess up. Every CM I've interested with is brilliant, but the process – the machine that is the company – is broken; y'all are worse than the sum of your parts, not better. We've been asking for that to be fixed for years, but it seems this machine is not capable of fixing itself no matter how much the people within it are trying their hardest.
    – wizzwizz4
    Nov 21 at 0:16
  • 6
    At the moment, its unfortunately easy to interpret what you have said as the legal team does not care or have any incentive to value the community, and the culture and structure within the company does not allow the CM team the power and influence they need to advocate for what the community needs. The community needs positive action. Nov 21 at 0:24
  • 37
    " I looked into this when I was made aware of this policy change earlier today. " Shouldn't y'all be in the loop, since it does touch heavily on the community side of things? There might be deeper process failures here if I'm not misinterpreting what you said. Nov 21 at 0:37
  • 29
    "This has already been acknowledged as a "process miss" by the company." - Exactly how many "process hits" did they have since the agreement was reached? Doesn't seem like a great track record at all. Nov 21 at 5:48
  • @JourneymanGeek: I'm guessing the T&S team was working with Legal on this, whereas Slate's on the Community Strategy team - it may have been the case that Philippe was aware of the details about the policy changes being released, while the rest of the CMs may not have necessarily known the details. (And it's possible that it was discussed internally beforehand, but that the specific details of when and how the policy change would be made were not known to Slate ahead of time.)
    – V2Blast
    Nov 21 at 22:58
  • 2
    @V2Blast - You're pretty close to the mark: We're rolling back the changes to the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)
    – Robotnik
    Nov 22 at 5:51
61

Does the new AUP ban unapproved bots that store data?

Some bots (such as SmokeDetector by Charcoal) run with approval from SE - the company is clearly aware of said bot, and doesn't mind. Charcoal tremendously benefits SE.

However, the statement

Framing and Scraping. [...] Use any automated [...] data gathering means [...] to gather any text, files, audio or visual media, profile information, or any other content from any Stack Exchange Network website without Stack Exchange's express prior consent.

Seems to mean that if I'm running my own bot to gather post contents (I'd consider that "text" or "other content") from the API (which is a Stack Exchange "website or service"), I need explicit approval and consent from Stack Exchange prior to running this.

I have a few questions in light of that.

  1. Is this actually banning bots that don't have explicit and prior approval, or am I misreading this?
  2. If it is, how can I (or anyone else) get permission? I'm aware of a number of different bots on the network, so I'd hope it isn't too hard to get approval.
  3. If Stack Exchange really does intent to require approval, please formally define a process for that and roll back this in the meantime. I'd also like to know how this is in line with a statement by Philippe, as explained below.

Additionally, to quote Philippe (staff) on an official post:

The company is committed to the long-term (foreseeable future) survival of the data dumps, the API, and SEDE. We will continue to maintain them, and assure that community members have free access to them for legitimate usages that support the community, broadly construed (including for study in classrooms, for instance). We retain the right to place guardrails around them to ensure that companies constructing language models, etc, are charged for access, but community users, including the Charcoal anti-spam network and similar projects will continue to have free access.

(emphasis already present in quoted post)

Not to be overly blunt... but if it requires "Stack Exchange's express prior consent", that isn't "free access to them for legitimate uses" unless there's a clearly defined and simple process to get that consent, and I don't see that process.

1
  • I expect that it in reality bans all bots the shareholders don't like, regardless of functionality.
    – user253751
    yesterday
34

And also added a Framing and Scraping clause specifically forbidding those practices.

Mithical has covered the biggest issue with this clause's wording, so I will address what I perceive as the intent of this rule. Last I checked, you were “no longer interested in receiving scraper reports”. Has this changed? Do you want us to start reporting “Stack Content Republishers […] Excelling at Ranking” again?

The relevant section of the contact form is labelled:

Stack Exchange content is being reproduced without attribution

(tucked away behind Trust and Safety, for some reason) so we don't really have a channel to report such things even if you want to start enforcing it again.


Edit 2023-11-21: There was a third possibility: cache invalidation. The below, while true at the time, is now obsolete.

I've got to admit, stunts like this (regardless of intent: institutional incompetence is worse than malice) don't make me especially confident that you should be the canonical home of our library any more. Has your organisation really become such a purposeless machine, running off inertia and flowcharts, that it can't even keep a deal made three-and-a-half months ago because… what? The paperwork wasn't properly filed? This change was on the desk of people who knew the correct procedure for such changes: what happened‽

Were the decision-makers somehow not aware of the company's obligations? Or did Philippe make an agreement that he didn't have the authority to make? I doubt it was the latter – at least, not knowingly –, but… well, I really hope I'm missing a third possibility.

Next time you make a promise, I am unlikely to believe it unless the CEO says it.

9
  • 6
    You believe CEOs?
    – philipxy
    Nov 21 at 2:40
  • 13
    @philipxy I am willing to extend this particular CEO that courtesy, yes. Once.
    – wizzwizz4
    Nov 21 at 2:42
  • 1
    Acronyms like “Stack Content Republishers […] Excelling at Ranking” make me wonder if the board think they're part of US government or something. Nov 21 at 5:52
  • 6
    @KarlKnechtel That particular joke (full version "Stack Content Republishers Attributing Poorly and/or Excelling at Ranking") dates to 2013 at least.
    – wizzwizz4
    Nov 21 at 9:39
  • @wizzwizz4 That courtesy should have expired a few times already based on public remarks by the current CEO. For example, referring to Stack Overflow/Stack Exchange as "a forum"...
    – TylerH
    Nov 27 at 21:01
  • @TylerH If the CEO came here and promised something, and actually followed up on comments, I would consider that a sufficient change of behaviour to believe it. (Though it seems Philippe's promise was actually binding, and this brief situation was an understandable accident owing to race conditions and holidays, so I'm also still inclined to believe that Philippe has authority to bind the company if he claims he does.)
    – wizzwizz4
    Nov 27 at 21:23
  • 2
    Having the CEO of SO participate on SO would be bizarre, it would be like Musk driving a Tesla or Zuckerberg posting on Facebook. It would signal that you believe in the product and trust it - it would be free, positive publicity - we can't have that.
    – Lundin
    2 days ago
  • These stunts will only get worse until we're all using a different site. After a certain point it isn't incompetence - it's malice under the excuse of incompetence. I should check how Codidact is going. Remember that all the questions and answers are openly licensed - authors and SO have given permission to scrape and repost them on other sites! That was Joel and Jeff setting up an institutional vaccine against exactly what the new management is currently trying to do.
    – user253751
    yesterday
  • @user253751 The only problem with that theory is that, in this case, the people responsible for the mistake include Cesar M – who is assuredly not part of the conspiracy. I'm willing to entertain the notion that Philippe is secretly evil, but not the rest of the CMs – and Philippe's only ever maybe-done one thing (unconfirmed if it was actually him) to make me suspect his motives, so I doubt he's motivated by malice here.
    – wizzwizz4
    yesterday
27

For the opening three paragraphs, we’ve reworded them all but particularly the second one for clarity and to be more in line with what we do.

More words != clarity. Writing out "Stack Exchange Network" every time, rather than defining an uppercase term (following standard practice for legal documents - I've lost count of the number of times I've seen an entire paragraph spent on describing the concept "You"), is a step backwards. It's not even being consistent, given that you're apparently willing to abbreviate "Acceptable Use Policy".

Aside from that, the only change made in the third paragraph that I can see is to replace "When" with "If". I suppose your intent is to avoid creating the impression that the reader's account will eventually be suspended. But this is simply an ambiguity that one must live with in English. By saying "if" instead, you lose the important information that content blocking and other such sanctions would be coincident with the suspension.

As for the middle paragraph, what you are effectively telling me is that you are no longer willing to offer that email contact or 72 hour grace period. I suppose there are reasons for and against that. But claiming that you may take "certain preemptive actions" is the opposite of clarifying the policy.

We've also reworded illegal use and spam to reflect what we mean by these more accurately.

The word "illegal" is perfectly ordinary, and no reasonable person would suppose that either the AUP or CoC should be responsible for enumerating all possible illegal activities. This change doesn't improve clarity nor accuracy. I agree that the advertising sense of "spam" should not be conflated with the idea of just posting nonsense content; but otherwise this is again adding words without actual clarification. Also, "affiliate marketing" is an established term; "affiliated marketing" does not make sense in a vacuum (affiliated with what?).

But in terms of overall prose, there is a deeper problem here. You introduce these points by claiming "If you are found to be in violation of any of the below policies, your account may be suspended or terminated". But this section on "Spam" now does not state a policy; it merely defines a term. The same applies to the other sections, except for the "Illegal Use" section.

We've added sections detailing Phishing, Doxing, and Malicious URLs as prohibited behavior.

Phishing is illegal. Posting malicious URLs is also already covered by "illegal use" if the poster controls the URL or otherwise knows that it is malicious; otherwise it makes no sense to condemn. Doxing is already covered by the Code of Conduct. (If you don't already consider it to fall under Abusive Behavior -> Bullying and Harassment, at a minimum, that's a problem.)

Unauthorized Use of Intellectual Property.

Aside from the fact that this is also illegal (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, just as with content posted on Law.SE), I struggle to imagine how posting on Stack Exchange could meaningfully violate someone's trademark. Unless you are proposing to suspend users for neglecting to add ™ etc. symbols (that could easily be edited in by others).

And also added a Framing and Scraping clause specifically forbidding those practices.

Without even considering the wording of this clause as Mithical has done already: I can guarantee you that effectively nobody who is framing or scraping SE has an account, and of them, none would care about having it suspended or terminated. Maybe if you terminated those accounts and had a blanket policy of requiring a login to view content, it could work. But we've already seen how much of a disaster that was for X.

3
  • 2
    Unauthorised use of Intellectual Property could be argued to not be covered by 'illegal' as it is a civil offense against the rightsholder, and not a criminal offense in many cases. And is most likely focused on copyright. Nov 21 at 11:59
  • 15
    It's probably better to remove the timeframe. As a mod I never knew I was meant to wait 72 hours before deleting an account that does nothing but post spam! Nov 21 at 12:01
  • @user1937198 I added the link in that part for a reason... Nov 21 at 12:06

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .