ZOMG!11!!!1111

Aug 04, 2007 21:48

LJ not backed up anywhere because... I agreed to the TOS. And if I wanna post something that I think might violate them... uhhh, I'll do it somewhere else where it's allowed ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 12

dclarion August 5 2007, 02:57:43 UTC
Huh? What? Did I miss something?

Reply

tylergrrls August 5 2007, 03:01:32 UTC
Some people got banned over some borderline Harry Potter fanart that may or may not have crossed the line of the TOS, and apparently there has been a change in the underlying LJ code to make it harder to notice bannings (suspended LJ names not being linked instead of showing up as struck through).

As usual, there is much wailing, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments and the inevitable yells of censorship, etc. And people trying to organize the Fandom Exodus from LJ. Again.

Mostly... I'm just boggling at it all. :p

-Bree

Reply

dclarion August 5 2007, 03:52:56 UTC
Today's rhetorical question: Have these people not heard of Apache?

Yeesh...

Reply


wrongly_amused August 5 2007, 03:54:20 UTC
Well, I agreed to the TOS, too, but I do think they need to clarify what they consider obscene. If a sexually explicit picture of young men who are visibly 16+ or older is considered a violation, I can understand why the original artists wouldn't have thought it ban-worthy. Also, lack of warning = fail.

Though the entitlement is fairly ridiculous, especially given how gracefully the two suspended users handled the situation.

Reply

tylergrrls August 5 2007, 04:00:23 UTC
Well, the lack of warning is PART of the TOS. If you agree to it, you pretty much have to agree that they can decide what is bad, get rid of it, get rid of you and change their minds about any of it. At any time.

It's not fun and it can sure suck... but it's not uncommon, either. And it's pretty much what we agree to put up with when we don't host our own stuff.

-Bree

Reply

wrongly_amused August 5 2007, 04:44:46 UTC
Which is fine, except that they stated LJ was falling under the same principles as American obscenity laws, in which case artwork of 16+ young men involved in sex is NOT obscene. If they're going to make the generalization broad enough to include nearly all artwork of under 18 characters and portrayals, they need to make that clear upfront. Livejournal isn't just a free service - a lot of us are paying customers. We have a right to know exactly what is and is not allowed. One of the girls who lost her journal had a permanent account - and the artwork she had done was of two characters who were both older than eighteen! How could she have possibly known that was not going to pass LJ inspection ( ... )

Reply

tylergrrls August 5 2007, 05:32:44 UTC
I guess where I'm stuck is that it would be good business to make this clear to their customers... but they don't have a responsibility to. Not if we've checked the little box that says they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, whether we've given them money or not, and they're not obligated to even tell us before hand.

And that's what annoys me most. If the rallying cry were, "Damn, LJ sorta is bringing the bad customer service on this issue" I think I could get behind that. But I haven't seen a lot of people stopping there.

-Bree

Reply


sisterelwood August 5 2007, 05:03:55 UTC
I'm in line with wrongly_amused's thinking. I just want to know who is running this circus at LJ and just continue to be boggled by how inept they look.

Reply


magelette August 5 2007, 09:59:24 UTC
Amen, my sex kitten.

Amen.

Reply


misskatherine August 5 2007, 13:51:03 UTC
I'm right there with you, Bree, rolling my eyes at all the entitlement drama and constant updates. I guess I don't get it because I'm not in it, but not only do I understand where LJ is coming from, this is exactly why there's a TOS in the first place.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up