There's gonna be some changes 'round here...
So: Barak Berkowitz of Six Apart has made a statement regarding the LJ deletions, and some, probably most, of the deleted journals are being reinstated. (You can find a more comprehensive list of deleted journals here; those that no longer have strikethroughs in their name are no longer deleted, obviously. I'd like to point out here that, contrary to Berkowitz's statement, not all fandom journals have been reinstated, though it appears that most of the consensual fetish communities have been.)
While I am pleased that much of the damage has been undone, I am still not satisfied with much of what Berkowitz has said about the issue, or with the official LJ policies that may follow. To wit:
There were a number of profiles that expressed “interest” in activities that most of us would agree put children at risk, notably pedophilia and child rape. Both in the instructions for profiles and in other places on the site we make it clear that interests listed should be evaluated within the context of “I like x”, “I’m in favor of x” or “I support x”. As many profiles are the only public part of a private journal and profiles serve partly as an advertisement for people of like interests, it is important that the content of a profile can be evaluated as if it stands alone. If your profile were to express interest in pedophilia with no other content that describes this interest as in helping survivors or protecting children from it we must read the profile as “I like or I support or I’m in favor of it.” For this reason we suspended profiles that meet this criteria.
First of all, anybody who has been on LiveJournal for any significant amount of time could tell you that interests lists are not used this way. Most LJ users take the interests list on their profile to be just that-- a list of interests, and what a person is interested in overlaps strongly with, but does not equal, what one likes. I have "fundamentalism" listed as an interest in my LJ profile, because I am interested in keeping abreast of fundamentalist groups in the US and challenging them wherever possible. Clearly, my "interest" in fundamentalism does not translate to me being a fundamentalist myself, or supporting fundamentalists-- which I think one would clearly get by a) reading that interest in the context of my entire interests list, b) reading my entire profile and my community affiliations, c) reading my journal itself. There are nuances to the way language is deployed in any LJ.
Speaking of nuances of language: trinityva has an interesting point as to how language is used in LJ interests list. As an example, she takes "beating people up," apparently one of the red-flagged interests in the LJ purge:
"Beating people up?" WTF? This can never be a joke, an expression of frustration, a cutesy description of someone who enjoys sparring in martial arts classes, a reference to consensual BDSM?
Indeed, what about context? Are we now expected to be able to explain, in our profile and our interests, the context of every single interest we list, in case someone from the LJ abuse team decides to go on a random search-and-destroy? Are we, from this point forward, not only expected to control our language in our journals, but to go out of our way to make sure that no word can be taken in a context that might alarm or discomfort people? Must we no longer not only avoid controversial interests, but avoid hyperbole, cutesiness, and facetious humor, just in case someone decides to take it too literally?
Another problem I have is this:
Another issue we needed to deal with was journals that used a thin veneer of fictional or academic interest in events and storylines that include child rape, pedophilia, and similar themes in order to actually promote these activities. While there are stories, essays, and discussions that include discussion of these issues in an effort to understand and prevent them, others use a pretext to promote these activities. It’s often very hard to tell the difference. As such, we intended to have suspend reported journals that do not clearly and substantially object to these a reasonable person would think supported these activities. while at the same time portraying them.
First of all: I object strongly to the black-and-white approach Six Apart is apparently taking to the issues of pedophilia and incest. Apparently, there are only two ways to approach the subjects: either you are condemning them, or you are glorifying them-- and thus perpetuating them, and thus probably some sort of sexual predator yourself. Once again, the very idea that there is room for nuance, context, and in-depth exploration of these issues is summarily thrown out the window. Given this understanding, will it now be considered grounds for journal removal to, for example, portray incest in a work of fiction unless the characters involved suffer for doing so? To discuss Lolita without placing a caveat in every entry that declares pedophilia is bad, bad, bad? The writer Hanne Blank has written a lovely entry exploring the cultural contexts and emotional landscape of age-disparate genital contact; is her declaration that she, as a teenager, had a sexual relationship with an adult that didn't emotionally damage her a glorification of pedophilia and, thus, grounds for deletion?
Secondly, who is this "reasonable person" to whom we answer-- to whom we must prove that we don't support objectionable activities? Who declared them a pillar of reason? Because from where I'm standin', I don't see much reason. Apparently, "reasonable people" can't tell the difference between fiction and reality, or opinion and action, and take everything ridiculously literally and out of context. (Hey! Kinda like the fundamentalists that started this shit war in the first place.)
In the entry previous to this,
Jay points, just in passing, to something that is very important for highlighting this debate. While Six Apart, and those who advocate their actions, cite their right as a business with a bottom line to do what they must, Jay points out that, for most of us, LiveJournal and its assorted communities constitute a culture. Whether you can, in legal terms, call what Six Apart did censorship, one must concede that what they did showed immense cultural insensitivity. As with any forum in which human beings gather to communicate, LiveJournal-- and assorted sectors of LiveJournal-- have developed their own norms, their own symbols, their own means of using and deploying language. Six Apart, showing an alarming lack of interest in understanding or working with cultural norms in place, monolithically imposed their own understanding of online language to decide which journals would get the ax, so to speak. I daresay that those on the receiving end of the deletions felt culturally threatened by this action.
So where does this leave me?
Well, I ain't deleting my LiveJournal. Not yet, anyway. There's too much history here for me to part with it so easily. Besides, my plan in grad school was to research the use and deployment of language online-- and particularly in online slash fandom-- and assuming that all the relevant communities aren't deleted by thesis time, this is going to be an immense resource that I can't afford to give up. However, I do feel that, on some fundamental level, my safety and the sanctity of my thoughts have been threatened here. Trust has been broken on this issue, and I don't know if I can ever get it back.
So I'm in the process of doing some hardcore compartmentalizing.
I am proud to announce that, after offering it to me multiple times over the years, I'm finally accepting Chris' offer to host my new blog. I've always wanted to try my hand at independent blogging, and after years of kvetching, now's the time. I'm planning on it being sort of a painfully-nerdy-queer-feminist-geeks-out-over-pop-culture sort of thing, with a little bit of body politics, sexuality, and other stuff thrown in. I am quite excited about it, and will let y'all know when the thing is up.
Secondly: if and when it is possible, I think I will be getting a journal on JournalFen. One of the things that this debate has really brought home to me is just how belittled fandom is, as a collective whole. I can't count the number of times that, while reading assorted takes on the mass deletion, I read some variation of "well, it's mostly fandom that's complaining, they're a bunch of drama whores anyway and besides, what kind of socially maladjusted weirdo writes Harry Potter porn?" I have, for a lot of assorted reasons, never been much more of a lurker on LJ fandom communities (though oh, what a lurker I am) because I'm not really keen on exploring that part of me in this journal (I am still painfully self conscious and often think: "Oh noes, what will my college friends think if I start squeeing openly or, gods forbid, posting fanfic in my journal?"). I am a big ol' fangirl, though, and especially given that I want to study fandom in grad school, I think it is only fair that I get more involved and put myself under the microscope as much as anybody else. I think I will feel much safer doing that a) away from this journal, b) with a journal service that has never been part of a mass-fandom-journal-deletion scandal, c) is specifically targeted to fandom(s), and thus features a minimum of "fans are socially maladjusted drama queens" wank.
(I'm also thinking of trying to find another forum to talk about kink and sexuality stuff. On the one hand, LJ is technically ideal for that sort of thing, given the complexity of the filter system. On the other: given the number of kink/fetish communities and journals that were suspended, I think we've established that such discussions are not safe here.)
The LJ will remain, at least for a time, for mundane everyday posts of the "I'm tired, my back itches, and oh-- this is what I ate today" variety. I will still check my friends list. But I will be writing here a lot less, and once I've finished using it for my academic purposes, I will likely delete it. And it goes without saying that I will never, ever, buy a paid account or more icons from LJ ever again.
So there you have it. It ain't an ideal solution, but hey-- it ain't an ideal situation either.
While I am pleased that much of the damage has been undone, I am still not satisfied with much of what Berkowitz has said about the issue, or with the official LJ policies that may follow. To wit:
There were a number of profiles that expressed “interest” in activities that most of us would agree put children at risk, notably pedophilia and child rape. Both in the instructions for profiles and in other places on the site we make it clear that interests listed should be evaluated within the context of “I like x”, “I’m in favor of x” or “I support x”. As many profiles are the only public part of a private journal and profiles serve partly as an advertisement for people of like interests, it is important that the content of a profile can be evaluated as if it stands alone. If your profile were to express interest in pedophilia with no other content that describes this interest as in helping survivors or protecting children from it we must read the profile as “I like or I support or I’m in favor of it.” For this reason we suspended profiles that meet this criteria.
First of all, anybody who has been on LiveJournal for any significant amount of time could tell you that interests lists are not used this way. Most LJ users take the interests list on their profile to be just that-- a list of interests, and what a person is interested in overlaps strongly with, but does not equal, what one likes. I have "fundamentalism" listed as an interest in my LJ profile, because I am interested in keeping abreast of fundamentalist groups in the US and challenging them wherever possible. Clearly, my "interest" in fundamentalism does not translate to me being a fundamentalist myself, or supporting fundamentalists-- which I think one would clearly get by a) reading that interest in the context of my entire interests list, b) reading my entire profile and my community affiliations, c) reading my journal itself. There are nuances to the way language is deployed in any LJ.
Speaking of nuances of language: trinityva has an interesting point as to how language is used in LJ interests list. As an example, she takes "beating people up," apparently one of the red-flagged interests in the LJ purge:
"Beating people up?" WTF? This can never be a joke, an expression of frustration, a cutesy description of someone who enjoys sparring in martial arts classes, a reference to consensual BDSM?
Indeed, what about context? Are we now expected to be able to explain, in our profile and our interests, the context of every single interest we list, in case someone from the LJ abuse team decides to go on a random search-and-destroy? Are we, from this point forward, not only expected to control our language in our journals, but to go out of our way to make sure that no word can be taken in a context that might alarm or discomfort people? Must we no longer not only avoid controversial interests, but avoid hyperbole, cutesiness, and facetious humor, just in case someone decides to take it too literally?
Another problem I have is this:
Another issue we needed to deal with was journals that used a thin veneer of fictional or academic interest in events and storylines that include child rape, pedophilia, and similar themes in order to actually promote these activities. While there are stories, essays, and discussions that include discussion of these issues in an effort to understand and prevent them, others use a pretext to promote these activities. It’s often very hard to tell the difference. As such, we intended to have suspend reported journals that do not clearly and substantially object to these a reasonable person would think supported these activities. while at the same time portraying them.
First of all: I object strongly to the black-and-white approach Six Apart is apparently taking to the issues of pedophilia and incest. Apparently, there are only two ways to approach the subjects: either you are condemning them, or you are glorifying them-- and thus perpetuating them, and thus probably some sort of sexual predator yourself. Once again, the very idea that there is room for nuance, context, and in-depth exploration of these issues is summarily thrown out the window. Given this understanding, will it now be considered grounds for journal removal to, for example, portray incest in a work of fiction unless the characters involved suffer for doing so? To discuss Lolita without placing a caveat in every entry that declares pedophilia is bad, bad, bad? The writer Hanne Blank has written a lovely entry exploring the cultural contexts and emotional landscape of age-disparate genital contact; is her declaration that she, as a teenager, had a sexual relationship with an adult that didn't emotionally damage her a glorification of pedophilia and, thus, grounds for deletion?
Secondly, who is this "reasonable person" to whom we answer-- to whom we must prove that we don't support objectionable activities? Who declared them a pillar of reason? Because from where I'm standin', I don't see much reason. Apparently, "reasonable people" can't tell the difference between fiction and reality, or opinion and action, and take everything ridiculously literally and out of context. (Hey! Kinda like the fundamentalists that started this shit war in the first place.)
In the entry previous to this,
Jay points, just in passing, to something that is very important for highlighting this debate. While Six Apart, and those who advocate their actions, cite their right as a business with a bottom line to do what they must, Jay points out that, for most of us, LiveJournal and its assorted communities constitute a culture. Whether you can, in legal terms, call what Six Apart did censorship, one must concede that what they did showed immense cultural insensitivity. As with any forum in which human beings gather to communicate, LiveJournal-- and assorted sectors of LiveJournal-- have developed their own norms, their own symbols, their own means of using and deploying language. Six Apart, showing an alarming lack of interest in understanding or working with cultural norms in place, monolithically imposed their own understanding of online language to decide which journals would get the ax, so to speak. I daresay that those on the receiving end of the deletions felt culturally threatened by this action.
So where does this leave me?
Well, I ain't deleting my LiveJournal. Not yet, anyway. There's too much history here for me to part with it so easily. Besides, my plan in grad school was to research the use and deployment of language online-- and particularly in online slash fandom-- and assuming that all the relevant communities aren't deleted by thesis time, this is going to be an immense resource that I can't afford to give up. However, I do feel that, on some fundamental level, my safety and the sanctity of my thoughts have been threatened here. Trust has been broken on this issue, and I don't know if I can ever get it back.
So I'm in the process of doing some hardcore compartmentalizing.
I am proud to announce that, after offering it to me multiple times over the years, I'm finally accepting Chris' offer to host my new blog. I've always wanted to try my hand at independent blogging, and after years of kvetching, now's the time. I'm planning on it being sort of a painfully-nerdy-queer-feminist-geeks-out-over-pop-culture sort of thing, with a little bit of body politics, sexuality, and other stuff thrown in. I am quite excited about it, and will let y'all know when the thing is up.
Secondly: if and when it is possible, I think I will be getting a journal on JournalFen. One of the things that this debate has really brought home to me is just how belittled fandom is, as a collective whole. I can't count the number of times that, while reading assorted takes on the mass deletion, I read some variation of "well, it's mostly fandom that's complaining, they're a bunch of drama whores anyway and besides, what kind of socially maladjusted weirdo writes Harry Potter porn?" I have, for a lot of assorted reasons, never been much more of a lurker on LJ fandom communities (though oh, what a lurker I am) because I'm not really keen on exploring that part of me in this journal (I am still painfully self conscious and often think: "Oh noes, what will my college friends think if I start squeeing openly or, gods forbid, posting fanfic in my journal?"). I am a big ol' fangirl, though, and especially given that I want to study fandom in grad school, I think it is only fair that I get more involved and put myself under the microscope as much as anybody else. I think I will feel much safer doing that a) away from this journal, b) with a journal service that has never been part of a mass-fandom-journal-deletion scandal, c) is specifically targeted to fandom(s), and thus features a minimum of "fans are socially maladjusted drama queens" wank.
(I'm also thinking of trying to find another forum to talk about kink and sexuality stuff. On the one hand, LJ is technically ideal for that sort of thing, given the complexity of the filter system. On the other: given the number of kink/fetish communities and journals that were suspended, I think we've established that such discussions are not safe here.)
The LJ will remain, at least for a time, for mundane everyday posts of the "I'm tired, my back itches, and oh-- this is what I ate today" variety. I will still check my friends list. But I will be writing here a lot less, and once I've finished using it for my academic purposes, I will likely delete it. And it goes without saying that I will never, ever, buy a paid account or more icons from LJ ever again.
So there you have it. It ain't an ideal solution, but hey-- it ain't an ideal situation either.