1. 17

Re-submitted without buffer URL

  1.  

  2. 8

    I wonder if it’s a Fahrenheit 451 reference as well.

    1. 8

      Indeed it is, according to the See Also.

    2. 4

      The RFC for this was published last year: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7725 (This is also linked from the Mozilla page.)

      I feel like it’s worth having the response code allocated just for the discussion it prompts. Anybody actually using it would be a bonus.

      1. 2

        This is pretty interesting. I work for a hosting company and even when working with people to remove content this has never been mentioned or used. I think this is one of those things were unless it gains critical mass (and everyone does it) there isn’t much point because it becomes hard to tell what is legal/missing.

        1. 4

          sounds like you’re in a position to help gather mass :)

        2. 1

          I have a feeling with recent events in the USA, we may start seeing more legitimate 451’s. That’s just speculation though.

          1. 4

            I have a feeling if we won’t, within 6 months any court orders will just say, “and use 404, not 451 as your response”. It’s a nice idea, but for any important take downs it won’t even get a chance to be used.

            1. 2

              The RFC itself pretty much says as much. I don’t read this as being about political censorship so much as DMCA takedown notices. Not that I’m claiming a crisp line between the two! Just pointing out that there are plenty of “unimportant” cases where the legal authorities would be just fine with users knowing that they are the reason some content is missing.

              1. 2

                Might that be more misleading than it not existing; that it’ll be there “when it doesn’t matter”, and when it does matter, you won’t be able to tell? I would rather they be explicitly different, if the former intent would exist at all.