Imgur has blocked the UK

Nabinium · Monday at 11:31

dlknight said:
This ruined my day, I regularly post in a couple of car forums on the progress on a couple of cars I'm working on. I've hundreds if not thousands of pictures hosted on imgur, linked to on those forum posts. My first thought was that I could try and rehost them with the same filename and then just change the first part of the URL in the forum posts (using find and replace). However it seems that all these image hosting sites add a random string between the hostname and the filename. Making it impossible to do a simple find and replace. The only thing I could think of is having a look-up table with the old vs new hosting URL and then a script to process each forum post (would have to save the contents of each post locally in bbcode).

Has anyone else looked into this and come up with a way to translate / transform / convert, imgur.com URLs to imgbb.com or postimage etc?

Quite stressful to see thousands of pictures to just go away like that!

For images posted on other car forums, you should be able to use DuckDuckGo (web browser)'s proxy to quickly bypass the Imgur block. Just stick the imgur link at the end. I would not rely on imgbb.com or postimage for this, as some people here have reported issues with images being thrown into the ether, unless you have a paid subscription.

Using your image as an example - https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https://i.imgur.com/ft7k1Er.jpg

In terms of find and replacing, not sure the best solution on that, but @Pho mentioned a script for the DuckDuckGo process above. It may speed up the process for you:

Pho said:

I also hacked a Tampermonkey script together (ChatGPT did because I was being lazy) which seems to work

Install Tampermonkey extension for your brower
Go to create new script
Paste in this script and save

Code:

// ==UserScript==
// @name         Imgur to DuckDuckGo
// @description  Replaces Imgur with DuckDuckGo image proxy links
// @match        *://*/*
// @match        *:///*/*
// @run-at       document-end
// @version      1.0.0
// ==/UserScript==

(function() {
    'use strict';

    const duckify = url => 'https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=' + encodeURIComponent(url);

    function replaceImgurLinks() {
        // Replace <img> sources
        document.querySelectorAll('img[src*="imgur.com"]').forEach(img => {
            img.src = duckify(img.src);
        });

        // Replace <a> hrefs
        document.querySelectorAll('a[href*="imgur.com"]').forEach(a => {
            a.href = duckify(a.href);
        });
    }

    // Run once initially
    replaceImgurLinks();

    // Re-run whenever new content appears
    const observer = new MutationObserver(replaceImgurLinks);
    observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();

You should be good to go

That being said, the DuckDuckGo proxy solution may also fail at some point, who knows. For a foolproof solution, self-hosting the images would be the best option, but obviously still a very time consuming process for the thousands of images you've already posted.

dlknight · Monday at 11:36

Nabinium said:
Quite stressful to see thousands of pictures to just go away like that!

For images posted on other car forums, you should be able to use DuckDuckGo (web browser)'s proxy to quickly bypass the Imgur block. Just stick the imgur link at the end. I would not rely on imgbb.com or postimage for this, as some people here have reported issues with images being thrown into the ether, unless you have a paid subscription.

That being said, the DuckDuckGo proxy solution may also fail at some point, who knows. For a foolproof solution, self-hosting the images would be the best option, but obviously still a very time consuming process for the thousands of images you've already posted.

Thanks for the reply, not sure how the DuckDuckGo would work for other viewers of the forum posts. I think as you say the best option is to self-host the images or find another hosting platform that doesn't alter the URL.

Nabinium · Monday at 11:41

dlknight said:
Thanks for the reply, not sure how the DuckDuckGo would work for other viewers of the forum posts. I think as you say the best option is to self-host the images or find another hosting platform that doesn't alter the URL.

Other viewers will still see the images, regardless of whether they're using DuckDuckGo as a web browser or not. The solution outlined by Pho just uses DuckDuckGo's proxy to bypass Imgur's block.

I think all other hosting platforms alter the URL for each uploaded image unfortunately. I haven't seen one that doesn't do that. Self-hosting would be the way to avoid all of this of course.

Feek · Monday at 12:57

Bonus points for my exif data.

Monkeynut · Monday at 13:04

Feek said:
Bonus points for my exif data.

Were you enjoying a "succulent Chinese meal" in 1968 or just being born?

ChrisD. · Monday at 13:10

Feek said:
Bonus points for my exif data.

It's the wrong way up.

darkgen · Monday at 13:34

Yes, just checking on my wonky instance and exif is not stripped. Not sure if this worked in the previous version or not as I never checked.

ChrisD. said:
Quick way is install exiftool on the host.

Does slinky call this then? I'll try apt-getting it within the docker container.

e: well that didn't work as apt is not installed within the slink container.

ChrisD. · Monday at 13:47

darkgen said:
Yes, just checking on my wonky instance and exif is not stripped. Not sure if this worked in the previous version or not as I never checked.

Does slinky call this then? I'll try apt-getting it within the docker container.

e: well that didn't work as apt is not installed within the slink container.

No, ideally your container should be using a host volume to store images. If they're local, you install exiftool on the host then

Code:

sudo exiftool -all= -overwrite_original *.jpg

as an example in the image directory.

I've checked as much as I can with settings and exif is persisting on upload, I've opened an issue for it. I might try downgrading to see if it's a new bug with 1.7 but unfortunately I have actual work to do this afternoon. :cry:

Van Diemen · Monday at 13:48

Kelt said:
I've just used this with success in the PC gaming forum.

https://freeimage.host/

Yep, same here.

Seems to work fine

darkgen · Monday at 13:55

ChrisD. said:
No, ideally your container should be using a host volume to store images. If they're local, you install exiftool on the host then

Code:

sudo exiftool -all= -overwrite_original *.jpg

as an example in the image directory.

I've checked as much as I can with settings and exif is persisting on upload, I've opened an issue for it. I might try downgrading to see if it's a new bug with 1.7 but unfortunately I have actual work to do this afternoon.

Ugh, ok gotcha. Yes, I'm using local as opposed to a host volume. In truth, I'm not too fussed as the my workflow will be using the ShareX shortcut, which strips it all out anyway.

Hopefully it's just a bug which can be fixed in the next release.

jaybee · Monday at 14:34

I read above that there is some concern as to opening up OCUK forums to be able to allow attachments due to having to make the site have age verification checks of its own? What is the current age requirement? Do you think content can still be inappropriate for younger people in text form without swearing on here currently? I'm just trying to understand how the OSA actually works and how it has changed things. It's clear when it's to do with adult websites and content that is adult, but what about sites where people could post adult content but shouldn't.
I'm rambling...
Just basically what would it take for OCUK to allow attachments as I think that is the best result for all if it can be done.

Nabinium · Monday at 14:49

jaybee said:
I read above that there is some concern as to opening up OCUK forums to be able to allow attachments due to having to make the site have age verification checks of its own? What is the current age requirement? Do you think content can still be inappropriate for younger people in text form without swearing on here currently? I'm just trying to understand how the OSA actually works and how it has changed things. It's clear when it's to do with adult websites and content that is adult, but what about sites where people could post adult content but shouldn't.
I'm rambling...
Just basically what would it take for OCUK to allow attachments as I think that is the best result for all if it can be done.

I was wondering this too.

If allowing attachments requires OCUK forum to verify age, is that because the attachment feature allows any content (adult or not) to be uploaded or something, and we'd be relying on moderation to remove any foul attachments?

LeeUK · Monday at 15:10

My little image uploader script that I've been running for over 10 years is still going strong. I didn't write the script but I remember I got it off some free php script website donkeys ago.

www.genie.me.uk

NetMan · Monday at 17:11

jaybee said:
I read above that there is some concern as to opening up OCUK forums to be able to allow attachments due to having to make the site have age verification checks of its own? What is the current age requirement? Do you think content can still be inappropriate for younger people in text form without swearing on here currently? I'm just trying to understand how the OSA actually works and how it has changed things. It's clear when it's to do with adult websites and content that is adult, but what about sites where people could post adult content but shouldn't.
I'm rambling...
Just basically what would it take for OCUK to allow attachments as I think that is the best result for all if it can be done.

Nabinium said:
I was wondering this too.

If allowing attachments requires OCUK forum to verify age, is that because the attachment feature allows any content (adult or not) to be uploaded or something, and we'd be relying on moderation to remove any foul attachments?

I think a lot of the age restriction requirements originated from COPPA in the USA which prohibited organisations from collecting data from children under the age of 13 without parental consent and that became the default age in other places for GDPR etc before the OSA was even a thing.

Criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old and in Scotland it is 12 so if a 10 year old in England posted something illegal they could be arrested but not if they were in Scotland.

So if age checks were introduced 13 years old would make sense with speakers corner and the random image thread possibly being made 18.

Any website where users can share content can be abused it could be hate speech, a link to another site, explicit text that isn't suitable for those under 18 and a lot of other things it doesn't have to be an image and the more users a site has the harder it is to moderate.

Which is why I've heard of cycling forums etc deciding its not worth the cost / risk and just closing down instead.

The other problem is people object to the big brother approach or don't trust a provider to keep their data safe and if told they needed to provide a scan of their passport etc if they wanted to keep using Facebook for example a proportion would just say sod that and delete their account.

My organisation runs a small online forum – is it in scope of the OSA? (via Passle)

Given the focus on large social media and video sharing platforms when it comes to discussing online safety, operators of small, community-run forums mi...

inquisitiveminds.bristows.com

Pho · Monday at 17:15

dlknight said:
Thanks for the reply, not sure how the DuckDuckGo would work for other viewers of the forum posts. I think as you say the best option is to self-host the images or find another hosting platform that doesn't alter the URL.

For a quick fix you could add some JavaScript into the forum that effectively does the same as the script I posted and replace imgur links with the DuckDuckGo proxy on the fly, or you could bulk update your database and patch all the URLs to the proxied version.

ChrisD. · Monday at 17:20

andy_mk3 said:
Oh fun times. I best check mine in my lunch break Silly of me to just assume that it is working without checking haha.

I just installed it locally, remove exif is set, and the exif data still remains.

Code:

mdls 8e44f10e-72bd-4893-ac9a-8c6e91d893d4.jpg
_kMDItemDisplayNameWithExtensions  = "8e44f10e-72bd-4893-ac9a-8c6e91d893d4.jpg"
kMDItemAcquisitionMake             = "Apple"
kMDItemAcquisitionModel            = "iPhone 15 Pro Max"

Going to try an older version.

arknor · Monday at 17:34

jaybee said:
I read above that there is some concern as to opening up OCUK forums to be able to allow attachments due to having to make the site have age verification checks of its own? What is the current age requirement? Do you think content can still be inappropriate for younger people in text form without swearing on here currently? I'm just trying to understand how the OSA actually works and how it has changed things.

does it even count for a heavily moderated by humans website with a fairly small community where inappropriate content is likely to be flagged and removed almost as soon as it appears.
by the rules its already family friendly and enforced
it's not like Facebook where it needs hundreds if not thousands of reports before something actually gets looked at by a human.

Nabinium · Monday at 17:37

NetMan said:
Which is why I've heard of cycling forums etc deciding its not worth the cost / risk and just closing down instead.

The other problem is people object to the big brother approach or don't trust a provider to keep their data safe and if told they needed to provide a scan of their passport etc if they wanted to keep using Facebook for example a proportion would just say sod that and delete their account.

Though what's stopping anybody from uploading an inappropriate image to one of these image hosting sites and then embedding on a forum post here? Yeah, that likely breaches the image host's T&Cs/rules too, but usually won't be removed instantly until they find said post. I don't understand the difference between that and moderating the use of native forum attachments.

Maybe I'm thinking about it the wrong way, just don't understand the difference tbh.

Bubo · Monday at 18:15

Is there a Dummies Guide for that duck go script thing? And when I say Dummies, I really do mean Dummies.

NetMan · Monday at 19:11

Nabinium said:
Though what's stopping anybody from uploading an inappropriate image to one of these image hosting sites and then embedding on a forum post here? Yeah, that likely breaches the image host's T&Cs/rules too, but usually won't be removed instantly until they find said post. I don't understand the difference between that and moderating the use of native forum attachments.

Maybe I'm thinking about it the wrong way, just don't understand the difference tbh.

If they used attachments then the forum moderators might be held responsible for the content as opposed to the image host; they might need systems in place to check the hash finger print of the files that were uploaded against known CSAM images for example which one would hope the big media companies with millions of users already have such systems in place.

I'm just guessing but if something bad was ever posted most of the fallout would be on the image host but it would still be very bad for the reputation of the forum.

And it wouldn't have to be "bad" as such it could be a copyright issue, a request under right to erasure etc and the forum would need to have processes in place to deal with that if it hosted the images.

I think from the OSA risk assessment side a computer forum isn't going to attract lots of users under 13 and athough there's been the occasional bot / fake user join they get called out and banned.

I think its why some places have thrown in the towel and just shut down, it wouldn't surprise me at all if at somepoint in the future Overclockers asked people to somehow verify accounts to use the forum.