Facebook and Instagram links not allowed?

I have been directed here from Support to try and solve a dispute with a mod who keeps removing Facebook and Instagram links from the profile of my label, citing the guideline 19.4.2 concerning "pages that are not directly accessible" (identical for artists: 18.3.2).

When I see these types of links can be found ubiquitously across the database on countless labels and artists, and no warning is presented when adding them, I can only assume this mod is going out of his way to overinterpret the guideline against a few select labels (he also did it here and here.

In the latest removal he is showing links to screenshots showing a login prompt. When I access the label's FB and IG without being logged in (and in incognito browser on Mac OS), I am shown the pages with a cookie prompt. When I accept either cookie option, I am shown the pages without the log in prompt. A simple Google search will show countless articles describing it, but also mentioning a limit to how much can be seen in a session before being prompted - like here: https://taplink.at/en/blog/how-to-view-instagarm-without-an-account.html. So is there any validity to the mod's interpretation?

Even if this interpretation is correct somehow, then why is it still possible to add the links in the first place? And are mods really expected to go through the whole database and have debates with every artist and label over this? Until a general rule is in place, enforced across the database, I definitely find it pointless and unfair to if single out more or less random profiles to remove these links from.

Thoughts and solutions welcome here and on the edit history.

dannykreutzfeldt
a dispute with a mod

There are no mods. This is just a basic user like you and me.

dannykreutzfeldt
citing the guideline 19.4.2 concerning "pages that are not directly accessible" (identical for artists: 18.3.2).

This is BS, IMO. Facebook and Instagram can be valuable resources. People that can't access these pages because they don't "do" these platforms for whatever reason just need to chill a bit and let these links be.

There's this thread specifically about Instagram with rather unhelpful input courtesy staff
https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/830974

Bottom line is, IMO, these links are valid, can give access to relevant information, if you can't or don't want to access this type of content, just don't click on them, they're just a short-cut on Discogs pages, having to google artist / label name to be presented with the same links to the same platforms is just making things more complicated out of random principles.

Facebook, while it has a login, does not require one to view pages; the user is factually incorrect.

I've undone a number of changes the user has made across the database; While I believe they are trying to act in good faith they are on the verge of vandalism with the removal of valid links.

cellularsmoke
Facebook, while it has a login, does not require one to view pages; the user is factually incorrect.

but instagram does. not possible to view post without a login

Please keep social media links in profiles.

watidatga
but instagram does. not possible to view post without a login

Disproved in the thead above.

watidatga
but instagram does. not possible to view post without a login

Only if you attempt to scroll past the first page or so on a web browser. You can get to an Instagram Page to verify it's real easily.

_jules
This is BS, IMO. Facebook and Instagram can be valuable resources. People that can't access these pages because they don't "do" these platforms for whatever reason just need to chill a bit and let these links be.

I agree.
I don't do facebook & insta, and yes I'm prompted to login after a short while. So I hate fb&insta links.
But... many info from many artists is just simply only found on these sites. Deciding not to include them because they're crap sites, sounds noble, but as long as artists take these sites seriously as an outlet of their work, it would be ignorant to the world as it exists, to not allow links to fb & insta on a site like this.

cellularsmoke
Facebook, while it has a login, does not require one to view pages; the user is factually incorrect.

Then why is Facebook showing me a login page when I try to access the profile link in question?

the mods have left the building

L.Rodriguez you should probably take note before you get carpet-bombed into CIP.

_Locke_
Then why is Facebook showing me a login page when I try to access the profile link in question?

You mean the login that you can ignore/close and still browse all of the content?

_Locke_
Then why is Facebook showing me a login page when I try to access the profile link in question?

Because different IPs, countries, GDPR, etc.?

IMO this is a very sterile discussion, you don’t do or like these platforms, more power to you, don’t click on these links, meanwhile these can be the only platforms some artists / labels use and can be relevant resources, like Bandcamp that no one’s really questioning when it’s basically a store front like iTunes, but that one's not valid because too corporate or something.

I personally think Twitter is a mental health hazard deserving a whole chapter in the DSM, still, when I’m updating an artist profile I add all social media links when they seem to be alive and let people click on the links or not if they want or don’t want to.

_Locke_
Then why is Facebook showing me a login page when I try to access the profile link in question?

No idea, but when I click on it I get the Facebook Page and a Very Large Banner asking me to log in, but I can scroll the page all I want without needing to log in.

Maybe it's browser based.

cellularsmoke
Facebook, while it has a login, does not require one to view pages; t

? I can't access any fb pages, not the last 20 times that I've tried.

zevulon
I can't access any fb pages, not the last 20 times that I've tried.

I've managed to access maybe one from the last twenty I've either been sent or clicked on
here.

cellularsmoke
Maybe it's browser based.

W11 and up to date Chrome. I'm not a FB user though.

RSG §18.3.2Do not link to review pages, Label pages that do not include artist profiles (include the direct link to the artist profile when available), email addresses, shops or online stores, pages that are not directly accessible (for example, that require a log in or payment to view)

I haven't removed any links afair, well maybe one or two, but the RSG (OMG not a luddite who goes by the RSG) don't allow them.
Any threats of EI votes should be considered carefully.

Here's the link from the sub in question
https://www.facebook.com/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fgondolinrecords

I show this link https://www.facebook.com/gondolinrecords and that's the link in the Edit Page; and I get to a FB page from there I can browse not logged in.

Sounds like you're getting a redirect for some reason.

avalon67
Here's the link from the sub in question
https://www.facebook.com/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fgondolinrecords

can't access that page, no.

cellularsmoke
for some reason

Reason might be that some of you guys are in the US and others are in Europe, where these platforms have to comply with different personal data and privacy protection regulations.

avalon67
Here's the link from the sub in question
https://www.facebook.com/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fgondolinrecords

Actually, no. That's a redirect link. The link is this:
https://www.facebook.com/gondolinrecords

And if you click that in a browser with a clean cache (and/or a private/incognito session), you get this:
https://imgur.com/a/lr0RZ5g

Which, granted, has a login box at the top and a login button at the bottom, but you're still free to scroll and view all of the content on the page.

cellularsmoke
https://www.facebook.com/gondolinrecords

and clicking on that still takes me to the login page. Which I can't.

I don't really have a horse in this race, as they say, but can see why links are removed.
Do you have to be registered with FB to see information? I would hope not.

cellularsmoke
I get to a FB page from there I can browse not logged in

Yea, got that,
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

GeoffTrowbridge
but you're still free to scroll and view all of the content on the page.

No, as above, I'm not

cellularsmoke
Maybe it's browser based.

I've tried three different browsers and the results are the same, a login page and no way to circumvent it.
Maybe it's IP/location based but my verdict is that the page is not directly accessible for me and probably quite a number of people in a similar situation..
It used to be different in the past, but things have changed.

_Locke_
It used to be different in the past, but things have changed.

Indeed, I noticed that recently, 4/5 months ago

I have the same experience as GeoffTrowbridge and can view the Facebook page without a problem.

This has become a repeat of the previous thread. To paraphrase, please do not remove links based on your own experiences browsing these sites.

soulvibes88
This has become a repeat of the previous thread. To paraphrase, please do not remove links based on your own experiences browsing these sites.

Perhaps it would be better to change the wording in RSG §18.3.2. and RSG §19.4.2. to "... pages that are not directly accessible to American users (for example ...". Perhaps, that could solve the problem of recurring discussion threads.

GeoffTrowbridge
And if you click that in a browser with a clean cache (and/or a private/incognito session), you get this:
https://imgur.com/a/lr0RZ5g

Not on my phone you don't.

https://ibb.co/1Lz5z1P

If the page isn't accessible to everyone without logging in, then it shouldn't be included. I can't login as I don't have an account.

soulvibes88

This has become a repeat of the previous thread. To paraphrase, please do not remove links based on your own experiences browsing these sites.

You have a link to that thread?

The problem is actually that increasingly a lot of small bands only have Social Media Pages; FB, Insta, Twitter, TikTok, Discord, etc... That's their official Band Page.

And we really shouldn't exclude them; Social Media sites are a ubiquitous aspect of society at this point - however you personally view them is irrelevant - either awesome or why we can't have nice things. Social Media sites are nearly universal, public-adjacent spaces.

It seems the Spirit of the Guideline is for actual Privately Locked Websites, like private forums, and other non-social media log-in protected places.

Otherwise, we'd need a ruling on whose Countries Privacy Laws are in play, the US seems pretty open, Europe not so much.

cellularsmoke
It seems the Spirit of the Guideline is for actual Privately Locked Websites, like private forums, and other non-social media log-in protected places.

I like this interpretation.

cellularsmoke
And we really shouldn't exclude them; Social Media sites are a ubiquitous aspect of society at this point - however you personally view them is irrelevant - either awesome or why we can't have nice things. Social Media sites are nearly universal, public-adjacent spaces.

And I agree with this. When researching/disambiguating profiles and companies I often use them and then add them to the profiles. If they're already there, all the better, spares me time searching for them.

cellularsmoke
It seems the Spirit of the Guideline is for actual Privately Locked Websites, like private forums, and other non-social media log-in protected places.

Maybe the discussion is leading us too far, but what exactly is the difference between a "non-social media log-in protected place" and a "social media log-in protected place"?

How do the guidelines define what Discogs should consider to be "social media"?

Guidelines simply says the database must be verifiable, and a working link to social media or whatever can be verified. Regardless of login or not, which is irrelevant. Internet Archive is very important for archiving external links.

_Locke_
"non-social media log-in protected place" and a "social media log-in protected place"?

Privately controlled forums, not designed with the same kind of "anyone can join" attitude. I'm not sure there are a lot left in the world to be honest. And they're almost always very focused in content.

Versus Social Media which while niche groups tend to congregate, the purpose is not focused, it's like a public square. There is no such thing as "off topic" on Social Media.

I think we might be discussing two different things here. I feel like we would like an academic-ish rigor pertaining to citations of sources for assertions in entered data, which could require that said citations be accessible without gymnastics; on artist profiles I see no problem with SM (pun intended) links

Just a small example:

I got confirmation Greg Bates (3) (now empty) is in fact Greg Bates (2) through the artist's Instagram showing the release in question (The Hobbs Sisters - If It Wasn't Love). (I don't have Instagram myself by the way.)

You'll notice that on his Wikipedia page it links to his official website, but the link is dead. Maintaining a website costs money, whereas maintaining social media doesn't (you pay with your data, essentially). Those socials are all he's got now.

So I duly added the links - might come in handy next time ;-)

Even email is publicly accessible information if other users can contact the same address, which is just a little more complex web resource than an HTTP link.

Metalman2
If the page isn't accessible to everyone without logging in, then it shouldn't be included. I can't login as I don't have an account.

You would have to settle that first with a comprehensive forum decision before it becomes valid.

_Locke_
Maybe it's IP/location based but my verdict is that the page is not directly accessible for me and probably quite a number of people in a similar situation..

I believe you, but I (and probably quite a number of people in a similar situation) can access it perfectly fine without logging in, so there's no reason to remove the link.

Why should info only be included if it's freely available to all discogs users for no charge, and without complication or log in?
Doesn't the music itself often require some kind of 'complication', usually in the form of a purchase?
Excluding links that require a log in does not make any sense to me. It's not like they force you to log in, if you really want access to the page you do whats required. Not sure why anyone would want to hide those links just because they choose not to use those sites.

Books or periodicals are generally what sources are used in academic citations. Are you sure Discogs should ban books from being used? Seems quite senseless and books are mostly not "directly accessible", because they need to be purchased in physical form often.

lsq
Books or periodicals are generally what sources are used in academic citations. Are you sure Discogs should ban books from being used?

The discussion is about external links on artist or label profiles, not about sources.

Nothing to complain about, why not? Whe it´s someone own´s label!

Violent-Power
The discussion is about external links on artist or label profiles, not about sources.

So the discussion is about external sources and which ones should be accepted in the database. The discussion was literally what I wrote about and what a directly accessible source really is.

lsq
So the discussion is about external sources and which ones should be accepted in the database. The discussion was literally what I wrote about and what a directly accessible source really is.

They're not sources though. It's not "where does the info on this profile come from?" (sources/citations), but "where can I find this artist on the internet?" (i.e. their "web presence", including notable fan sites, artist's page on their label's website, etc.).

EzraZebra
They're not sources though. It's not "where does the info on this profile come from?" (sources/citations), but "where can I find this artist on the internet?" (i.e. their "web presence", including notable fan sites, artist's page on their label's website, etc.).

A source is simply something that supplies. In this case information. You are thinking of a secondary issue of what the supplied information is used for, in this case to write a profile.

lsq
A source is simply something that supplies. In this case information. You are thinking of a secondary issue of what the supplied information is used for, in this case to write a profile.

But it doesn't supply information other than the link itself. It's simply a link to an artist's presence on the web. There doesn't need to be any information on any given page for it to be included.

EzraZebra
But it doesn't supply information other than the link itself. It's simply a link to an artist's presence on the web. There doesn't need to be any information on any given page for it to be included.

The link is a URI, which is like the name of a person. But there is more to a person than just his or her name. The link should be removed if the page has no info, but should be tested in wayback machine first.

I think we're getting off track - yes, remove dead links or links that don't have directly related information behind them. I don't think anyone would argue that.

Links to social media pages are neither of those unless said Social Media page has been abandoned/closed and no longer has even historical information.

cellularsmoke
Links to social media pages are neither of those unless said Social Media page has been abandoned/closed and no longer has even historical information.

Get rid of all the myspace links then?

I dunno, if an artist has a personal website that's just a single page saying "hello there!", I don't see why it should be removed, or a social media profile where the artist just posts memes is no less valid than one where they post tour dates or whatever.
There's no requirement that pages/sites contain any information about the artist (except of course third party sites, like labels or fan sites).

cellularsmoke
yes, remove dead links

Before removing a dead link: always check archive.org
Maybe there is an archived version which can replace the dead link.

(That said, a message to everyone: Please if you add any external link to a profile, release, MR or history/comment/subnotes: always archive it and post the archived link in the subnotes. That way the info is still accessible after a site closed down, or just after bits of information were removed/changed. I have a firefox plugin from archive.org which allows archiving with a single click + I don't have to wait for the archiving to be finished before I can copy/paste the link. I expect such a plugin/addon to exist for most common browsers.)

Dr.SultanAszazin
Please if you add any external link to a profile, release, MR or history/comment/subnotes: always archive it and post the archived link in the subnotes.

Where does it say this in the guidelines?

Metalman2
Where does it say this in the guidelines?

It's not mandatory, it's not in the guidelines.
But Diognes_The_Fox has advised to do this numerous times and it's a common practice on sites which document all kinds of matters.
In 2023, it is a known problem that web resources might just disappear or change over time. But by now we have a means to take a snapshot, so if you use a reference to an external site, others have the possibility to see what was there, long after it's gone.

So please, do so.

In an ideal world, it should be mandatory, but in practice, we'll never achieve everyone doing this. For some it's too much hassle, others are not handy enough with computers, etc...

Dr.SultanAszazin
That said, a message to everyone: Please if you add any external link to a profile, release, MR or history/comment/subnotes: always archive it and post the archived link in the subnotes.

I never did this, but this is great advice and I will try to do it like this from now on, thanks!

Dr.SultanAszazin
That said, a message to everyone: Please if you add any external link to a profile, release, MR or history/comment/subnotes: always archive it and post the archived link in the subnotes.

I do that for any kind of source if possible, not only for profiles but all kinds of updates based on info from the web (like formats or whatever). Not necessarily posting the archive.com link here, but archiving the page helps should the page go offline to prove your point in later discussions.

Metalman2

Where does it say this in the guidelines?

Because it says "Only enter or change information that you can cite a trustworthy source for " and "Unsubstantiated information may be removed or rejected".

Also "This is true and a huge deal."
https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/782313?message_id=7760940#7760940
https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/820587?message_id=8146027#8146027

Ah yes. A four year old forum comment will always take precedence over the actual guidelines which are available to everyone. Of course.

Metalman2
Ah yes. A four year old forum comment will always take precedence over the actual guidelines which are available to everyone. Of course.

I literally never wrote that the forum comments take precedence, and there is no reason why they should (they give guidance though).

avalon67
but the RSG (OMG not a luddite who goes by the RSG) don't allow them

Of course you can get to FB pages of artists without having to log in. As well: Why would the DB have functionality implemented to replace a FB link with just 'Facebook' and a hyperlink to the repective FB page, if they would not be allowed? Would not make a lot of sense, if they are disallowed.

Mop66
Of course you can get to FB pages of artists without having to log in.

FFS, no, I can't. As I've written above. As other users have also posted.

Mop66
Why would the DB have functionality implemented to replace a FB link with just 'Facebook'

This is how it works for all links, there's no special function for just facebook.

EzraZebra
This is how it works for all links, there's no special function for just facebook.

It does not in the same way for all websites:
Facebook, SoundCloud, Twitter, Wikipedia, YouTube all have just the site name
while others are just shortened to the top URL
dailymotion.com, flickr.com, imdb.com, instagram.com (NOT Flickr, IMDB or Instagram!)

avalon67

FFS, no, I can't. As I've written above. As other users have also posted.

You can unless the artist/band have put their profile to not public. It's not Facebook's fault but the artist/band.

avalon67
Mop66Of course you can get to FB pages of artists without having to log in.

FFS, no, I can't. As I've written above. As other users have also posted.

There's nothing in the guidelines that says the link should be available in every territory. There's plenty of countries out there with even more restricted internet access than you apparently have, but imho we shouldn't take all of that into account when adding links. As long as they're not private or behind a worldwide paywall it should be fine to add the link.

Violent-Power
As long as they're not private or behind a worldwide paywall it should be fine to add the link.

I believe I wrote something wrong above, it says do not add pages that require login on artist pages.
RSG §18.3.2 Do not link to review pages, Label pages that do not include artist profiles (include the direct link to the artist profile when available), email addresses, shops or online stores, pages that are not directly accessible (for example, that require a log in or payment to view) or poor quality fan pages.

lsq
I believe I wrote something wrong above, it says do not add pages that require login on artist pages.

But it doesn't say that the login should apply to every single person in the entire world... I can access these pages without login, these links are useful to me. I don't get why people are so bent on removing them.

Violent-Power
why people are so bent on removing them.

It is amazing innit?

Maybe just ask a statement from staff?

Facebook/Instagram is used by lots of artists as an official resource, sometimes the only one. I hate about any product that involves a Zuckerberg influence, but I still feel that not allowing these sites would be absurd for a site like this.

The guideline says not to link to "pages that are not directly accessible" and gives as an example a page that requires a login, or is behind a paywall.
Facebook/Insta used to be accessible without login.
But... they are still accessible, although limited.

That guideline was written with private communities in mind, not with facebook and insta suddenly taking a more aggressive approach towards people which do not wish to have a faecebook account or closed it down to get rid of the daily spam in the mailbox, like I did.

I think the best course is take it up with staff / Diognes_The_Fox to determine these site should be allowed or not, and reword the guidelines a bit so it is completely clear whether FB/Insta is allowed or not.

Dr.SultanAszazin
I hate about any product that involves a Zuckerberg influence, but I still feel that not allowing these sites would be absurd for a site like this.

+1