The censor ship sets sail
I've kept mum in my own entries about the recently enacted "flag this post/journal" nonsense, though I have chimed in other's posts regarding it. It's time I said my piece.
I am sorry that I paid into this thing to have a permanent account. Nothing SixApart/Livejournal could have done could have upset me more, save for possibly making such determinations of content suitability themselves. There are plenty of mechanisms in place for readers to deal with content they feel is objectionable. But to put in place an automated system that allows any LJ member to take it upon themselves to rate a blog or entry against their own scale of appropriateness is vile. Such a system is ripe for serious abuse, given the fact that the blog owner has no recourse to reverse decisions made through the system.
I did a little experiment to self-rate my journal as having "Adult Concepts". When Jeff viewed my blog as a non-LJ user, every entry was reduced to a link stating to the effect that the following post might contain adult content. No content save for that statement, the post title and entry tags. It looked more like a toxic waste dump full of danger signs than a blog. I reversed the setting back to 'No Adult Content', which is actually untrue. I specify that this journal may contain explicit content in my user info. That should be more than enough.
I am sure that everyone remembers the infamous "Wardrobe Malfunction" from a few Super Bowls back where Janet Jackson's titty was flashed onscreen for a fleeting moment. The FCC soon received thousand upon thousands of complaints regarding the incident, which led to the serious fine levied against the network as well as tightening regulations regarding adult content during prime time television. A while after the incident and the noose tightening, it was determined that a majority of the complaints regarding the incident, in the upper 90 percent range, came from a single source, the Parents Television Council. This conservative organization rallied members and their constituents to fill in web forms by forwarding links to like minded individuals, whereupon the PTC the forwarded the complaints to the FCC. A single organization with an agenda was easily able to start a campaign and draw in support for a cause. This did not represent a viewpoint of a majority of people, nor did it represent a median slice of popular opinion. It was a directed campaign agenda against a specific target.
Putting a decision up to an internet vote can have unintended consequences. Just ask Mister Splashy Pants.
Now, I present to you a scenario that could easily occur here. One or more people can easily take a trip through a set of journals, say, by following a particular interest or community that has some factor they feel needs to be censored This does not even have to be anything more than ideology at work. A small christian group with virtual torches and pitchforks against various gay journals, for example. A small concerted effort of clicking a few links by some people and the damage is done.
Needless to say, it can work both ways. Those wronged can retaliate in the same way. Then where does it end? It ends up being a kind of virtual warfare with very real outcomes. My little walled garden of people on my friends list would not be affected as far as I can see, but the chilling effect will cause many of those people to stop posting or change their style, or perhaps delete their blogs entirely.
I hope cooler heads prevail in this. The flagging mechanism seems to be the simplest means that people could come up with at the corporate level to cover their asses when it comes to 'explicit content'. It seems to me the worse thing that could have been done.
I cannot help but feel that the whole '2 girls 1 cup' thing had something to do with it. The timing is way too suspect.
EDIT: It's come to my attention that Sixapart has sold LJ to a Russian company. The plot thickens. And I doubt any good will come from it.
EDIT EDIT:
I am sorry that I paid into this thing to have a permanent account. Nothing SixApart/Livejournal could have done could have upset me more, save for possibly making such determinations of content suitability themselves. There are plenty of mechanisms in place for readers to deal with content they feel is objectionable. But to put in place an automated system that allows any LJ member to take it upon themselves to rate a blog or entry against their own scale of appropriateness is vile. Such a system is ripe for serious abuse, given the fact that the blog owner has no recourse to reverse decisions made through the system.
I did a little experiment to self-rate my journal as having "Adult Concepts". When Jeff viewed my blog as a non-LJ user, every entry was reduced to a link stating to the effect that the following post might contain adult content. No content save for that statement, the post title and entry tags. It looked more like a toxic waste dump full of danger signs than a blog. I reversed the setting back to 'No Adult Content', which is actually untrue. I specify that this journal may contain explicit content in my user info. That should be more than enough.
I am sure that everyone remembers the infamous "Wardrobe Malfunction" from a few Super Bowls back where Janet Jackson's titty was flashed onscreen for a fleeting moment. The FCC soon received thousand upon thousands of complaints regarding the incident, which led to the serious fine levied against the network as well as tightening regulations regarding adult content during prime time television. A while after the incident and the noose tightening, it was determined that a majority of the complaints regarding the incident, in the upper 90 percent range, came from a single source, the Parents Television Council. This conservative organization rallied members and their constituents to fill in web forms by forwarding links to like minded individuals, whereupon the PTC the forwarded the complaints to the FCC. A single organization with an agenda was easily able to start a campaign and draw in support for a cause. This did not represent a viewpoint of a majority of people, nor did it represent a median slice of popular opinion. It was a directed campaign agenda against a specific target.
Putting a decision up to an internet vote can have unintended consequences. Just ask Mister Splashy Pants.
Now, I present to you a scenario that could easily occur here. One or more people can easily take a trip through a set of journals, say, by following a particular interest or community that has some factor they feel needs to be censored This does not even have to be anything more than ideology at work. A small christian group with virtual torches and pitchforks against various gay journals, for example. A small concerted effort of clicking a few links by some people and the damage is done.
Needless to say, it can work both ways. Those wronged can retaliate in the same way. Then where does it end? It ends up being a kind of virtual warfare with very real outcomes. My little walled garden of people on my friends list would not be affected as far as I can see, but the chilling effect will cause many of those people to stop posting or change their style, or perhaps delete their blogs entirely.
I hope cooler heads prevail in this. The flagging mechanism seems to be the simplest means that people could come up with at the corporate level to cover their asses when it comes to 'explicit content'. It seems to me the worse thing that could have been done.
I cannot help but feel that the whole '2 girls 1 cup' thing had something to do with it. The timing is way too suspect.
EDIT: It's come to my attention that Sixapart has sold LJ to a Russian company. The plot thickens. And I doubt any good will come from it.
EDIT EDIT: