Beginning the conversation

[theljstaff]

As we're sure you remember, one of the goals LiveJournal, Inc. set last year was to review and post new policy guidelines in our 100 day planWe know you've all been waiting a long time for this to happen, and today, we're taking an important step in accomplishing this goal. We've reviewed, clarified, and posted a draft set of policies, and we'd

Comments

[cacahuate]

When adult content flagging was introduced, I was under the impression that it was not mandatory. I'm dismayed to see that this policy requires graphic adult content to be flagged.

[marta]

It isn't mandatory in that there is no negative repercussion for not marking it as such. If it's flagged enough times and is reviewed, the only thing that might happen is that it has an "Explicit" setting administratively set.

[cacahuate]

Unless that setting can be easily reversed, I have problems with this-especially since I remember a primary argument for implementing the system being that it would be a voluntary way for adult community maintainers and others to easily restrict their own content by age. Why can't users be the ones to determine who can and can't see their content? Is there some legal reason for this, and if so, why wasn't it an issue before this system was implemented?

[kita_malice]

I also agree with this comment

[dandelion_diva]

I agree completely.

[umei]

I also agree with this comment.

[bitter_crimson]

I also agree with this comment.

[simons_flower]

In other words, we leave it unmarked at our own risk. If we're reported, that option is taken out of our hands.

I'm beginning to feel like Lando Calrissian after Vader changes his mind again.

[randomposting]

I know, right? :( I feel the same way about the "unsolicited comments" issue! Like now we're not allowed to comment on other peoples journals if they're not on our friends page? Like what the heck is that about? Isn't LJ in part for building a community of journallers, and making LJ friends? I feel so sick over all of this.

[thalialunacy]

Where was that in the proposal? I think I missed it.

[cacahuate]

In the spam section: Numerous identical or nearly identical unsolicited, unwanted comments or entries have been posted to various journals and/or communities.

[randomposting]

Summary

[cacahuate]

I have to say, that part doesn't bother me. It says specifically that it's referring to spam. Making genuine comments on people's journals to make friends shouldn't fall into the category of "numerous identical or nearly identical unsolicited, unwanted comments or entries [that] have been posted to various journals and/or communities." If you're not copy-and-pasting, selling Viagra, or madly promoting your site, you should have nothing to worry about.

[randomposting]

I don't do any of those things, but if I see someone's who's having a hard time, I'll write something along the lines of "I hope tomorrow's a better day for you." and I genuinely do wish that. And there'll be times I'll see a lot of journals where people are having a rough go of it, and I'll type something along those lines to each of them, and someone marked me as spam for it last month. How anyone could report that as spam confuses me in the first place, but for LJ to have threatened to suspend my journal, and then do research and say "Oh wait. That's not spam." and now they're redefining their definition of spam so that it can include that, however loosely definitely rubs me the wrong way.

[randomposting]

It's really concerning. :(