The flag feature only matters on public posts. If you're already f'locking your explicit or extreme-content posts, you have no reason at all to set to "adult concepts."
Of course, this part is as poorly implemented as the rest of LJ's code; I believe that teens will still see the adult/explicit cut-tags instead of real posts if f'locked posts are tagged (like, if the whole journal is labeled that way). We need some testing to sort out how that works--can a friended teen view flocked, explicit material?
Also need to sort out how the RSS or other feed options work.
Secondary note, in support of "don't do it:" There are no legal standards for text "inappropriate for minors" in the US. A 10-year-old can buy Anita Blake erotic vampire stories, can read graphic war stories, can look at The Joy of Sex in a library or bookstore.
This is not about "protecting minors from what they're not allowed to see." It's about being able to tell the advertisers "see? Our site is kid-friendly!" It's about being able to offer LJ feeds to sites that don't allow the kind of explicit content that LJ does.
LJ is hoping to get widespread customer support by using ambiguous language--by calling it "adult concepts" instead of "blocked people who say they're 13 or less", and "explicit content" rather than "blocked from viewers who admit they're under 18."
They're dodging all questions about age verification by insisting that can't be their problem. This proves they really don't care about "protecting children"--and since the content in question isn't illegal, it's not about "CYA for court battles"--it's about protecting their advertiser dollars.
it's about protecting their advertiser dollars. Ding! We have a winner. Any question that starts with, "Why would 6A do...?" can be answered with that phrase.
I believe that teens will still see the adult/explicit cut-tags instead of real posts if f'locked posts are tagged (like, if the whole journal is labeled that way). We need some testing to sort out how that works--can a friended teen view flocked, explicit material?
Note that they won't see the generic cut tag for explicit adult content at all if they haven't undone the default filter setting forced on them and everyone else.
The flag feature only matters on public posts. If you're already f'locking your explicit or extreme-content posts, you have no reason at all to set to "adult concepts."
Forgot to mention, this is not entirely accurate. Someone cannot flag an individual flocked post (or, if they do, it will supposedly be ignored), but they can still flag your entire journal, even if all of your public posts are rated G. This came up in discussion at lj_biz.
I couldn't agree with you more. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "doing it for the children" (a job that - in my opinion - is the responsibility of PARENTS, not strangers), but in covering LJ/6A's legal @ss and make their membership more palatable and legally defensible to buyers/The Market.
The flag feature only matters on public posts. If you're already f'locking your explicit or extreme-content posts, you have no reason at all to set to "adult concepts."
Of course, this part is as poorly implemented as the rest of LJ's code; I believe that teens will still see the adult/explicit cut-tags instead of real posts if f'locked posts are tagged (like, if the whole journal is labeled that way). We need some testing to sort out how that works--can a friended teen view flocked, explicit material?
Also need to sort out how the RSS or other feed options work.
Secondary note, in support of "don't do it:"
There are no legal standards for text "inappropriate for minors" in the US. A 10-year-old can buy Anita Blake erotic vampire stories, can read graphic war stories, can look at The Joy of Sex in a library or bookstore.
This is not about "protecting minors from what they're not allowed to see." It's about being able to tell the advertisers "see? Our site is kid-friendly!" It's about being able to offer LJ feeds to sites that don't allow the kind of explicit content that LJ does.
LJ is hoping to get widespread customer support by using ambiguous language--by calling it "adult concepts" instead of "blocked people who say they're 13 or less", and "explicit content" rather than "blocked from viewers who admit they're under 18."
They're dodging all questions about age verification by insisting that can't be their problem. This proves they really don't care about "protecting children"--and since the content in question isn't illegal, it's not about "CYA for court battles"--it's about protecting their advertiser dollars.
Reply
Reply
Friended teens can't see flocked tagged posts. Teens see the generic cut tag; when they click on it, they get a page saying either The content that you are about to view could contain adult concepts which may not be suitable for minors. You must be at least 14 years of age to view this. or the one for 18+, depending on the filter the journal owner selected for all content. They do not get an option to click-through anyway; all that is offered them is a stupid link saying "Explore LJ."
Note that they won't see the generic cut tag for explicit adult content at all if they haven't undone the default filter setting forced on them and everyone else.
Reply
Forgot to mention, this is not entirely accurate. Someone cannot flag an individual flocked post (or, if they do, it will supposedly be ignored), but they can still flag your entire journal, even if all of your public posts are rated G. This came up in discussion at lj_biz.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment