On Leaving SixApart

[brad]

There's a bit of accuracy in this ValleyWag story, in that I'm leaving SixApart. But the reasons ValleyWag cites for me leaving aren't so accurate.

Yes, I'm bored, but that boredom isn't SixApart's fault. I've been doing this whole LiveJournal thing for about 9 years now. Even though I haven't been working on LiveJournal itself for perhaps a

Comments

[czircon]

LiveJournal's in good hands

You can't be serious.

[popcultureicon]

It would be unprofessional to say otherwise.

[randomsome1]

He'd be one of the very few maintaining some sort of professionalism through this entire mess.

[seishin]

I cant help but look with that statement but with a raised eyebrow and a scoff of disbelief, especially considering the current PR nightmare that 6A is inflicting upon themselves by ignoring the flood of comments at news and lj_biz.

I barely recognize this place from the one I signed up on back in 2001. :(

[brad]

I didn't follow the latest child porn debacle, but as far as I heard: child porn. Even cartoons (even those based on underage characters) are incredibly illegal, and LJ's TOS can't permit it (or conveniently ignore it). Maybe communication sucked, but I haven't been following. I heard about it for about 30 seconds just earlier today.

In any case, LiveJournal's in good technical hands, even if communication about child porn suspensions is bad, if indeed that's what you're referring to.

[czircon]

They weren't child porn! That's the whole issue. 6A is suspending users who write/draw gay erotica that is in no way child porn. And yet, they aren't touching some of the seriously disturbing, sick, misogynistic hetero porn communities. Discrimination -- it's the new black!

[brad]

I hear two things:

"It's child porn!"
and:
"It's not child porn!"

I just don't have time (or inclination) to figure out which is the truth. But "seriously disturbing, sick, misogynistic hetero porn communities" isn't illegal, so we're not suspending it. Child porn, however, is actually illegal. Very illegal. So it gets suspended.

[screwthedaisies]

The LJ Abuse Prevention Team doesn't appear to think it was child porn, based on an email another user received from them in response to her questions about the recent suspensions--emphasis mine: "Non-photographic images involving minors in sexual situations do not fall under the legal definition of child pornography, but LiveJournal has opted to restrict this content under the guidelines explained in the lj_biz community."

So, please stop calling it child porn?

[brad]

The "LJ Abuse Prevention Team", iirc, is a bunch of volunteers and not necessarily lawyers, correct?

So if somebody at SixApart gets a complaint, asks lawyers, and lawyers say it needs to absolutely be removed, would you listen to the lawyers, or some volunteers?

But please, don't discuss this with me. The flood of personal emails to me about this is a big part of the reason I realized that after 9 years, I need to find something else to do.

[anildash]

iawtc

[kateshort]

It wasn't child porn, which has to deal with photos of actual children. It *was* illegal under the child OBSCENITY laws, though, which deal with images of non-photographic nature, even if the image is not of a real child:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001466---A000-.html

[suzene]

Legality had nothing to do with poderosa121's suspension. Her art determined by LJ abuse not to be child pornography or illegal, but was suspended because the LJ abuse team decided that it was lacking in "artistic merit".

Frankly, if you don't have the time to figure out what the facts surrounding a matter are, don't spout off on it.

[agnoster]

How does saying (essentially) "I don't have all the facts, and I'm leaving this up to the people whose job it is to deal with it" equate to "spouting off"? He made it pretty clear he's not really familiar with this particular situation, and doesn't intend to get involved or pontificate on it. So, come on, give the guy a break.

Sheesh, if I had to deal with constant barrages of this kind of thing, I'd be looking for something different, too...

[suzene]

Except that he didn't.

"I'm not involved with LJ anymore and I'm not going to comment on this situation."

That's fully understandable and I'd expect that any reasonable person would back off after such a statement.

Saying that the art in question was child porn, claiming that LJ was in the right to ban the users in question, and only then admitting that he was pretty much fully ignorant before making that statement? Spouting off.

[ex_ciannait]

Because nobody's a better judge of "artistic merit" than a bunch of basement-dwellers with nothing better to do with their lives than play innernet-cop on LJ.

[erastes]

I have to back up anonymous. At least two of the newly suspended LJ's were artists were draw fanart of adult characters, but granted they were porn.

I know that it's nothing to do with you, but I wanted to set the record straight.

Good luck in whatever you do next.