internet myths and a negative review

[rivkat]

Your internet law PSA of the day:

The latest iteration of this recurrent question centers around seizure- and migraine-triggering user icons. Many people have suggested that LJ, by not taking action against such icons, risks legal liability for the harm caused by them. This is modified from a comment I made to mecurtin’s post (which has, by the way, a

Comments

[stoplookingup]

That's very interesting. I worked on the editorial staff of one of Compuserve's content providers in the early 90s -- and we ran some forums there as well. At that point it was generally believed that active moderation meant greater liability, but interestingly the tendency was still to lean toward very heavy moderation. I also worked for Prodigy at a time when it hired an entire staff to read forums 24x7 in search of content that violated the guidelines. We all came from more conventional print and broadcast backgrounds, and we just couldn't conceive of a situation where we'd willingly "publish" the kind of language and images that were flying around online forums -- it was a base-level assumption that we'd never succeed if people saw that stuff on our service. There's no question that in some ways free expression was stifled, but in many ways it was a more pleasant online environment because trolls and nasties were promptly dealt with.

[myownghost]

i was one of georgia griffith's volunteer moderators in the early '90s on C-serve. the members of the forum would ask me to intervene if something was offensive to them, and i had the power. you're right that it was a pleasant environment because of the moderation.

[frelling_tralk]

Hopefully this won't come off as unsympathetic, but if there are LJ users who get triggered by animated icons, can they not use disable images? If it's a health risk for them, then that seems the most sensible option?

[cschick]

If they're using Firefox, they can also simply disable animated gifs (I think there's both a disable option and a cycle once option).

And if one gets really, really annoying when you're on any page and you have them enabled (in FF) hit escape and it'll turn off all animated gifs on the current page.

[cschick]

Here you go:

http://ffextensionguru.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/tip-pauserestrictdisable-animated-gifs/

Apparently, the esc key turns off animated gifs in both Firefox and IE.

That's how to access the further restriction options in Firefox.

[myownghost]

i've seen annoyingly flashing icons around, but i didn't realize they were triggering illness in some users. thanks for the link to mecurtin's post, which i'll go take a look at now.

[luthorienne]

Actually, the part I found appalling was the fact that some people use the flashing icons deliberately, knowing they're triggers. Lord knows, there's a lot of annoying flashing content online, and I kind-of think people who are susceptible to it should be thinking about whether or not they want to surf; but having said that, it's not okay to do it on purpose, apparently hoping to trip someone up. It's like digging a man-trap in your yard and then posting a sign that says, "Come on in and visit".

And thanks to cschick for the tip about the esc key -- I'm not susceptible, but it's still good to be able to disable the flashers.

[teenygozer]

What she said! (Points upward at luthorienne's post.)

I found the sniggering passive-aggressive bully-boy attitude unconscionable more than anything else, with the posting of the flashing icons with the sole purpose of sending people into epileptic fits and/or migraines, and then the ingenious "well, my-goodness-me, why don't they just disable animated icons?" as a follow-up. I hate trolls and I hate fratboys, and these guys are both. The smug was so thick, you could cut it with a knife.

Posting hyper-animated icons illegal? No. Doesn't make it any less jerky.

[luthorienne]

And, really, what do they have to be smug about? Any idiot could do this (and clearly, some idiots have). Apparently they have no real accomplishments of which to be proud.

[teenygozer]

Oops, I meant "ingenuous", not "ingenious"!