(Untitled)
stardust_rain's post of yesterday got me thinking, because both arguments that seem to be dominating discussions-"LJ wants fandom gone" vs. "LJ is in heap-big financial trouble"-both seem to have their flaws. If LJ wants fandom gone, why not just yank on the copyright violation angle, which is much more plausible than ZOMGCHILDPORN!? If LJ is in heap-big
( Read more... )
By whose standards? The company's?
Whose bright idea was it to claim that "sponsored content" isn't advertisements? What part of the yo-yo suspensions is considered "treating the customers well?" How hard would it be to declare publicly what community's standards you'll be using to decide if something is obscene?
And why would you think it's "treating the customers well" to post crucial policy changes in a blog, instead of updating the TOS or at least the FAQ that it connects to?
If you were devoted to treating us well, then content that's definitely not permitted would be listed... like breastfeeding default icons, which don't fit any of the descriptions of objectionable content, or pedophiliac's journals, which aren't inherently advocating crime or harm. The continued conflation of "erotic fanart" with "child pornography" proves that you're not paying attention to user concerns.
If you were concerned with the community, someone would have opened a thread or a whole journal for "interact with staff; get clarifications and details here; discuss the changes you want made and how we can bring them to you without losing money."
Who decided to change the look of suspended/deleted journals? Were the customers/community involved in that decision at all?
I think you can understand that, after the last few months, we don't trust you to make decisions "in our best interests;" you are oblivious to our interests.
Reply
Leave a comment