Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Your Rights Online

Mass Deletion Leads To LiveJournal Revolt 436

Posted by samzenpus
from the we're-not-gonna-take-it dept.
Green Monkey writes "LiveJournal has been suspending accounts suspected of promoting incest — except that many of them were communities for survivors of abuse and people discussing Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita. Even after being informed of the problem, LiveJournal apparently refuses to reinstate the banned accounts. LiveJournal's official news blog has filled up with hundreds of complaints protesting the decision, so we could have another Digg-style user rebellion brewing." Update: 05/31 11:50 GMT by KD : strredwolf writes to let us know that in their offical blog LiveJournal admits to botching the suspension, saying "We made a mistake and now we are going to try to fix it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mass Deletion Leads To LiveJournal Revolt

Comments Filter:
  • by Cassius Corodes (1084513) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:16AM (#19332907)
    Jeez, how hard is it for these companies to just NOT piss off their own customers.
    • by kestasjk (933987) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @02:08AM (#19333263) Homepage
      I wonder if everyone who posts to livejournal will put incest advice in their posts as a form of rebellion, and I wonder if we'll put incest advice in our posts and signatures to show our support.

      -----
      0x14CE57
    • by KingKaneOfNod (583208) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @02:25AM (#19333365)
      You've got it wrong; they haven't pissed off their customers, they're probably in fact doing what their customers have asked. You forget that advertisers are their customers. Now they may have pissed off consumers who use their site (and thus generate the traffic they need to attract advertisers), but I'm pretty sure their customers (the advertisers) won't be at all upset about this.
      • by tirerim (1108567) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @02:34AM (#19333439)
        Actually, no. LiveJournal is only minimally supported by advertising, which only comes through users who have agreed to have Google Ads show up on their journals in exchange for extra features. Most of their money comes from users with paid accounts. If those users get pissed off and leave, the site dies.
      • by starwed (735423)
        Wait, what? I don't think LJ carries ads, at least, none that I've ever seen. (And no, I don't have adblock or the like running, nor am I a paid member.)
      • Eyeball$ (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TapeCutter (624760)
        "You've got it wrong; they haven't pissed off their customers, they're probably in fact doing what their customers have asked. You forget that advertisers are their customers. Now they may have pissed off consumers who use their site (and thus generate the traffic they need to attract advertisers), but I'm pretty sure their customers (the advertisers) won't be at all upset about this."

        If that's what is going on here then LJ has it "wrong".

        The users are buying LJ's service, it's just that the users "pa
      • by StrawberryFrog (67065) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @08:33AM (#19335437) Homepage Journal
        You've got it wrong; they haven't pissed off their customers, they're probably in fact doing what their customers have asked. You forget that advertisers are their customers.

        No, you've got it wrong. I have a paid LJ account, that makes me a customer, but not an advertiser.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bkr1_2k (237627)
        This was actually in response to some idiot who claims to be "saving the children" threatening to go to LJs advertisors and showing them supposed accounts that are doing and discussing illegal things. The mass hysteria is a result of LJ going overboard with which communities and accounts they suspended/deleted.

        Personally, I think anyone who lost data should get over it. There are plenty of ways of archiving your stuff, and if a conversation held anonymously in an internet discussion forum is that importan
    • by someone1234 (830754) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @02:27AM (#19333377)
      It is somehow fishy that there are MANY communities discussing Lolita.
      • by tezbobobo (879983)
        And no-one could dispute that without chancing being labelled as a paedophile.. Keep walking with the masses man
        • This isn't aimed at you personally, but much of the discussion seems to be confusing incest with paedophilia. The only thing they really have in common is both are sexual taboos in western (and many other) cultures. On a "human behaviour" level the definition of both words varys greatly across different cultures and generations.



          I suspect that now the word "terrorist" is starting to loose it's "magic spell" quality, we will be hearing more incantantions of the "sex offender" spell. The USG (as distinct
    • by tezbobobo (879983)
      Its the nature of those in power to force their will onto others.

      Quite frankly no amount of people telling me how much better it would be with my sister is gonna make me want it;

      As for those who are into that sort of thing, letting them post is not a tacit approval if you choose not to moderate anything.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:17AM (#19332919)
    My sister is hot!
  • Incest? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by VirusEqualsVeryYes (981719) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:19AM (#19332933)
    Does anyone else find the Internet a rather unlikely medium for spreading incest? Incest happens within the family, one which probably doesn't think much of the Internet. And if you're convinced to commit incest because of what strangers on the interwebs say, your family's got bigger issues.

    Think of the children! To hell with the rest.
    • Re:Incest? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:33AM (#19333035) Homepage Journal
      Like you said... it is the internet. People are much more likely to say to random internet folk "My sister sucks on my cock and I like it", than they are their buddy next door. With that, you are just as likely to have someone who encourages it/discourages it/talks to them about it.
    • Re:Incest? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kjella (173770) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @02:12AM (#19333277) Homepage
      Internet is a great place if you're looking to confirm your "normality". Between a few billion people, there's almost always someone that's just as oddball as yourself. So if you start out looking to confirm that lots of people have incestrous fantasies, you'll find it. And while there, you'll find sutble hints that people have real-world experiences. And if you want to believe it, you'll "find" that lots of people do it and so could you.

      I think humans aren't wired right for the Internet. If only a few decades ago you knew a few hundred people doing something, it was probably something common and (so mostly) accepted in society. Your odd desires were maybe shared by one or two, tops. Now you got the Internet, and the rules have changed completely but we haven't. On the Internet, you can find confirmation for roughly anything. There's always a social circle somewhere that agree with your practises, if you look hard enough.

      For the most part, this is a good thing, the freedom to associate with people that think like you and want to live life like you. But you should be aware what happens when you let your highly distilled social circles decide your social norms as opposed to checking out what your average neighbor and townsfolk are thinking about it.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Dude. Reality check. There are rules for proper raping of your slaves in the bible. God forbid you rape your slaves in a manner Jesus didn't approve of. Deviant is the norm for the lizard brain.
      • Re:Incest? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @03:09AM (#19333605)

        But you should be aware what happens when you let your highly distilled social circles decide your social norms as opposed to checking out what your average neighbor and townsfolk are thinking about it.
        --
        Support EMI and iTunes Plus, show the big labels
        that DRM-free music works. Boycott the rest.
        Considering just how little the average neighbor and townsfolk knows or cares about DRM, I find the juxtaposition of those two sentences quite ironic.
  • Oh well (Score:3, Insightful)

    by smegged (1067080) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:21AM (#19332947)
    If you are really that concerned about being able to post whatever you wish, register yourself a domain name (your own name or a variation thereof should be available), learn some basic html (or get someone else to do it for you) and post your journals to your own site. Include a few google ads and use that to pay for any hosting fees.

    These sites are allowed to censor whatever they wish whenever they wish because it's their site. If you're upset with the service find somewhere better or stop complaining. It's not like the users are paying for the privilege. If the journals are lost for good then it really is the users fault for not backing up their own stuff.
    • Re:Oh well (Score:5, Informative)

      by Aerynvala (1109505) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:27AM (#19332999) Homepage
      It's not like the users are paying for the privilege. Well, actually, some of us are paying for the services.
      • by OverlordQ (264228)
        Well, actually, some of us are paying for the services.

        Easy solution. Take that money, stop paying, host your own blog. Not worry about somebody deleting your blog (Well not as much). Profit.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Aerynvala (1109505)
          If it were just a matter of having a blog, then yes. That would be an easy and perfect solution. That's not all that's at stake. LJ's method of networking journals adds another layer to the situation.
          • by OverlordQ (264228)
            LJ's method of networking journals adds another layer to the situation.

            No it doesn't. It's called an opportunity cost, might take an Econ class some time. You forgo the handy networking cruft, in exchange for no censorship. Or looking at it the other way, you give up the ability to post whatever you want, in exchange for whatever these networking things you're talking about are.
          • by Crizp (216129)
            So it's really all just a circle jerk after all -- your own content doesn't matter, as long as everyone can see how many "cool people" you're networked with. Right?
        • Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Frosty Piss (770223) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:52AM (#19333159)

          Easy solution. Take that money, stop paying, host your own blog. Not worry about somebody deleting your blog (Well not as much). Profit.

          Exactly. A cheap hosting account and WordPress. Problem solved. NEXT.

          • Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)

            by asninn (1071320) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @04:33AM (#19333967)
            That fails to take into account what Livejournal is actually about. It's not just a blogging service, it's a huge community (or maybe meta-community); I don't want to call it a social networking site, since it actually predates that particular fad, but while it all revolves around journals/blogging, slapping WP on your own web space and using that would mean that you'd miss out on all the stuff that actually makes Livejournal worthwhile and sets it apart from other blogging services.
        • Re:Oh well (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Lemmy Caution (8378) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @03:15AM (#19333639) Homepage
          These "just move your business" type of posts whenever there's any story about a company behaving badly with regards to its customers or employees puzzle me a little. Are you saying that they shouldn't be complaining? Just meekly folding up their journals, transcribing or exporting all the data, and finding another service and then hope that the new service behaves no differently?

          I think raising a big fuss about it is actually a better response, accompanied by or followed by a move to another provider. The bigger a noise is made about, the bigger the message that is given to the industry as a whole.
        • by rtb61 (674572)
          More accurately.

          1. Create virtual community.

          2. Get plenty of users by not being control freaks.

          3. Sell to advertising based corporation.

          4. Shit loads of profit

          5. Advertising corporations are basically control freaks ie. buy what we tell you to buy, 'NOW'.

          6. Marketdroids piss off all the users by trying to control them, and the users look for another site.

          7. See step 1.

          Some where in there, a whole bunch of share holders lose a ton of money paying way to much for a site that has now been destr

    • Re:Oh well (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:28AM (#19333005) Homepage Journal
      You say this because it is about incest... but if it were about collecting magic cards or watching star wars, wouldn't your opinion all of a sudden change?
      • Re:Oh well (Score:5, Insightful)

        by smegged (1067080) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:38AM (#19333059)
        Actually no, it wouldn't change. I do use free journal services occasionally, and I would probably be a little annoyed if my posts got censored, but if they DID get censored, I would simply either move to another service or pay for my own hosting (oh my gosh, using my free will to boycott products I don't like - how horrifying).

        If you believe that what you say is that important that it simply has to be on the internet, then you will make it happen.

        The owners of livejournal have the right to do whatever they like with their website, provided that it is within the law.
        • Re:Oh well (Score:5, Insightful)

          by kestasjk (933987) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @02:24AM (#19333359) Homepage
          Play this down if you want, but this is no small issue.
          On the spectrum of free speech from the least protected to the most sacred you have:
          • Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater
          • Ranting about vietnam on street corners
          • Ranting about sin on street corners
          • Criticizing celebrities
          • Criticizing political figures
          • Criticizing the system of government

          • Sure, this is just livejournal. But then Fox will ban it, then the BBC, then they'll ban talk about it in pubs and on street corners, no more right to peaceful assembly or incest rallies, then it'll just be a goddamn Orwellian society where incest is a thought crime.
            When people in power try to enforce their warped view of morality on good, freaky citizens it's time to found a new government.
        • Law != ethics (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Geof (153857) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @02:43AM (#19333491) Homepage

          The owners of livejournal have the right to do whatever they like with their website, provided that it is within the law.

          So basically you're saying that the law is the law? That's rather unhelpful... Do you really mean to suggest that if something is legal, it is not wrong? Or that even if it is wrong, attempting to change it is a waste of time? (Never mind that the statement collapses the rather important distinction between rights and freedoms.)

          I just want to clarify, becuase I often see this legalistic claim on Slashdot. I think it's incredibly harmful, but I'm not certain how many of those who make the argument fully understand what they're saying (I hope not many).

        • Re:Oh well (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @04:50AM (#19334099)

          The owners of livejournal have the right to do whatever they like with their website, provided that it is within the law.
          You know, I am getting sick and tired of this bullshit excuse. Google does something that people don't like, just shut the fuck up it's a free service, Myspace does something people don't like, just shut the fuck up it's their business they can run it however they want too, Livejournal ... etc, etc.

          I call bullshit.

          Just as all those companies have the right to do whatever damn thing they please, we have the right to call them on the carpet for it, in public and out loud. Sure, go ahead and vote with your dollars, or your feet, but that doesn't mean people should not speak up for what they believe is right too. In fact, its axiomatic that your vote won't count, your boycott of a handful of dollars won't make an iota of difference, because there are another hundred thousand ignorant people standing in line to take your place.

          But one voice speaking the truth can be magnified by the internet so that it makes an impression on millions. None of these companies would exist without us, the little guys, creating the content that they repackage and load up with advertising. Speaking out is the only chance we've got to actively make them sit up and behave like good internet denizens.

          Not every protest will make a difference, but acquiescing into silence because it's "their website" is guaranteed to make no difference at all.
    • by aussie_a (778472)

      Your own name or a variation thereof should be available
      You'd think so, wouldn't you? :( Sincerely John Smith
    • Re:Oh well (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Thursday May 31, 2007 @03:18AM (#19333649) Homepage Journal
      This kind of response -- "If you don't like what Company X is doing, do it yourself" -- comes up every time any kind of corporate misbehavior is discussed, and it seems to me that the people who say it don't understand the concept of "middle ground." Look, I like LJ. It's a good service for a good price. I don't have any particular desire to set up my own blog; I'd rather use theirs, and I'm willing to pay for it. So, as a paying customer, it's my hope that when they do something I don't like, I can persuade them to change their ways by complaining about it.

      If every single person who was dissatisfied by every single thing every single company did just went off and did their own thing, let's face it, the economy would fall apart. Just as the "four boxes" should carefully be used in the proper order when trying to change the government -- jump ahead from soap to ammo, and you'll quickly find yourself alone and in a heap of trouble -- so there is a reasonable continuum of customer response to corporate action, from "enthusiastic recommendation" on one extreme to "boycott" on the other. And there's a whole lot in between.
  • by UbuntuDupe (970646) * on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:22AM (#19332967) Journal
    LiveJournal's official news blog has filled up with hundreds of complaints protesting the decision, so we could have another Digg-style user rebellion brewing.

    Let's show solidarity with them:

    09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
  • by sehlat (180760) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:27AM (#19332985)

    Apparently it started with a group of professional trolls who call themselves "Warriors for Innocence" and whose website, I am told, is baited with enough spyware and malware to lay waste to a continent. They complained and LiveJournal caved without so much as a whisper of investigation.

    Who are this bunch, exactly? Anything like those "family-friendly" folks who complain en masse to the FCC whenever the word "sex" is so much as whispered on the television or radio?

  • by Virak (897071) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:27AM (#19332995) Homepage
    I mean, with so many people screaming "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" all the time, you'd think they'd be happy to have someone finally actually listening and doing it. But no, they ban them all? None of this makes sense.
  • User-created sites (Score:4, Insightful)

    by evanbd (210358) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:35AM (#19333047)
    When a site derives its content entirely from its users, that site ceases to be entirely under the control of its creators. Somehow it seems to be taking a while for some people to figure this out, but when the users want something badly enough, well... you better give it to them. You know how some people keep saying the internet will empower the people by giving them a voice? Well, it turns out they mean it -- especially when it's in relation to things on the internet.
    • by rayvd (155635)
      True, but somehow I doubt that the vast majority of LJ users want/need to post about incest.

      We're talking about a small minority of the LJ community here.
      • by evanbd (210358)
        They may be small, but they would appear to be vocal enough to get themselves posted on Slashdot...
  • by femto (459605) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:42AM (#19333085) Homepage

    MySpace, LiveJournal, ... They are the Internet equivalent of the mega shopping mall. They represent convenience but convenience comes at the price of freedom. Have you ever tried protesting outside a shop in a mall? You can't. The mall is private land and you will get removed by security. Similarly with LiveJournal and the other "communities" based on a centralised website, they are private space and the owner can boot you out on a whim.

    Why not stick with the public spaces on the Internet? If you need a chat room: use an email list, Usenet or run an IRC server. If you want to share your photos: put them on your web server. If you want a pretty home page with lots of "friends" put a home page on your web server with a guest book. These are the online equivalent of the local shopping strip. It's a public place and no-one can force you to bend to their whim. The public spaces of the net are better than web2.0. They are just as customisable, do the job as well or better and you don't have to take it on trust that your freedom will be respected.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SolitaryMan (538416)

      MySpace, LiveJournal, ... They are the Internet equivalent of the mega shopping mall.

      Nope. They are closer to some kind of Eastern bazaar, where everyone sells and buys. LJ depends on users' postings, or it is better to say LJ is its users. Ban some topics/users and it will be discussed somewhere else. There is nothing unique in LJ

      • by femto (459605)

        The analogy holds. The "sellers" still need permission from the owner of the "mall" to sell their wares.

        You seem to be arguing that the shoppers and shopkeepers control the mall. This would only be true if (almost) every shopper or shopkeeper boycotted the mall. That would never happen as the mall owner is too smart to boot everyone out of the mall, only the minority whose presence is inconvenient. It doesn't matter if the minority who are kicked out happen to be innocent, as they are just a minority

    • by hachete (473378)
      Yeah, that's right. Let's herd these people into a ghetto where they can be easily contained, controlled, and rounded up when the time comes. That's the spirit. We see an example of precisely that, bending the web to meet a pressure group's whims.

      Web2.0 makes it easier for people to do these things, so now we're excluding a whole class of people who want to take advantage of web2.0's ease of use? LJ got where it is today precisely because it had a liberal policy. And where do the exclusions stop? Who's to s
      • Livejournal is no longer the company that it was was.

        once danga got bought out by sixapart, things started falling to shit.
        • by QuoteMstr (55051)
          Funny, that's how it always is. Somebody comes up with a new idea, and it's successful. Sooner or later, the price is right, the person is sold out, and the idea becomes monetized and censorsed. It seems to be the natural order of things.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by quantaman (517394)

      MySpace, LiveJournal, ... They are the Internet equivalent of the mega shopping mall. They represent convenience but convenience comes at the price of freedom. Have you ever tried protesting outside a shop in a mall? You can't. The mall is private land and you will get removed by security. Similarly with LiveJournal and the other "communities" based on a centralised website, they are private space and the owner can boot you out on a whim.

      Just because the owner is allowed to do something doesn't mean they should.

      Say the mall owner kicks you out because he doesn't like your anti-war t-shirt, yes it's his right, and yes I have the right to complain about it, and I will. This is what's happening here, a bunch of people got kicked out for possibly saying something the owner didn't like, yes it was the owner's right to do so but we're sure not under any obligation to agree with the owner's actions.

      Why not stick with the public spaces on the Internet? If you need a chat room: use an email list, Usenet or run an IRC server. If you want to share your photos: put them on your web server. If you want a pretty home page with lots of "friends" put a home page on your web server with a guest book. These are the online equivalent of the local shopping strip. It's a public place and no-one can force you to bend to their whim. The public spaces of the net are better than web2.0. They are just as customisable, do the job as well or better and you don't have to take it on trust that your freedom will be respected.

      I'm curious what happens when your ISP becomes

    • by evanbd (210358) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @04:47AM (#19334083)
      Could you perhaps provide us with a car analogy?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:44AM (#19333091)
    This thread... is USELESS without pics!
  • >>
    Fourteen-year-olds hook up together all the time. It's called high school.
    >>

    Yes, and when fourty year olds are emotionally invested in watching, reading, or writing about it? That creeps me the heck out. Oh sure, I get it, when you're talking about Harry and Snape taking a disciplinary infraction to a whole new level, thats fantasy. Yes, understood. Its just pretty freaking creepy. Am I that worried that Livejournal doesn't want to be associated with you? No. Many sane people, you know,
    • by 15Bit (940730) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @02:33AM (#19333433)
      I know many people who would dispute your implied definition of sanity. "Sexual perversion" is all around you, and all over the web too. How many "funny" comments are put up here about porn downloads? Well, there's more than an element of truth in those comments. Look around at your neighbours and friends - more than one of them is a "sexual pervert" and you just don't know it.

      As for the 40-somethings who want to read/write about this stuff, well thats fine. Writing about sex with a 14 year old is a long way from actually doing it, and the large number of people who have written and read such fiction indicates that it is far from abnormal for the healthy imagination to wander in this respect. I would say that writing or reading about paedophilia/incest/bestiality etc no more makes you a pervert or a threat to society than playing Quake makes you a murderer.

  • by Talez (468021) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:45AM (#19333103)
    Nothing could ever go wrong with that strategy.
  • It looks like LJ pacified our taliban. This is the point where you take your posts elsewhere. Standing around and bitching about it indicates that you'd like to remain a member, so it's a matter of pacification to retain your eyes and bytes.
  • Nec eos omnes. Deus suos agnocet.

    Seriously, I've been an LJ user since 2003. Never before have I been this pissed at them. Thank goodness I'm getting my own webspace soon. Yeah, I know, with the spare parts I've got lying around the place, I could set up my own Apache server, but I'm too lazy, and my current Internet provider forbids webservers.
  • WTF? (Score:5, Informative)

    by interiot (50685) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:47AM (#19333119) Homepage
    From the LJ abuse team [livejournal.com]:

    We recognize that many people list these types of interests for shock value, as a method of expressing opposition for these illegal activities, or to indicate fictional activity. Unfortunately, the Abuse team does not have any discretion in these cases; if a journal profile contains interests that support illegal activity, we must suspend the journal. Journals, on the other hand, may express or imply interest in illegal activity or express or imply a desire to meet and/or interact with others with similar interests, but only if the journal clearly (1) is in opposition to or condemnation of the illegal activity, (2) does not encourage the illegal activity and (3) is not used in furtherance of any illegal activity.
    So now every time mentions something that might be illegal, they have to pause, look at the camera, put on their most convincing "I'm serious now" face, and say "this is fiction, not real life, we're not encouraging anyone do this in real life, and if you do this illegal act, you'll be in big trouble"? Does LJ really expect people to say things like this with a straight face for very long? I mean, yeah, many actual real-life illegal activities are real downers, but when people have to start saying a blurb after things that are almost certainly legal, but they still have to say the blurb so they don't get caught up in suspensions where LJ has "no discretion", then those blurbs aren't going to be something anyone takes seriously, but instead will be an outlet for users to continually mock LJ's policies.
  • by ConfusedSelfHating (1000521) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @01:51AM (#19333141)

    Everyone has a legitimate concern about parents molesting their children. And it would be great if there was an easy solution. But this appears to be blindly striking out at the problem. This is several steps worse than banning novels which have a fictional murder because some people may be inspired by it. This would be similar to sending people to prison for saying that they're "killing time" because someone has a last name of "Tyme". Blind stupid methods for solving problems never work, they just impair the ability of regular people to live their lives. You know that the pedophiles are just going to adopt codewords and continue their pedophile ways.

    I would be much happier if this was a regular pedophile hunt. Of course, malware is going to be downloading horrific stuff to unknowing people, leading to innocent people being dragged off to jail by techno-impaired judges and juries.

  • that if you want no censorship on your postings, you need to own the server and even in some cases, the network!

    Honestly, I understand why alot of people subscribe to these free blog services but you truly are at their mercy. At any given moment, a) your account could be deleted, b) the hosting service could disappear or c) your account could be hacked through no fault of your own. Hosting your blog on your own servers don't guarantee that those won't happen but at least it puts it in your hands. Until then
  • I liked the livejournal of user spuller a lot: http://spuller.livejournal.com/ [livejournal.com]
    Anyone know where he moved to ?
  • Warren Ellis said it best on his site (warrenellis.com):

    For what it's worth: Warriors For Innocence come off a little weird, to say the least. Mind you, so does Andrew Vachss. But LiveJournal's response bears more study. Their sloppy, blanket response indicates that they simply don't have a process in place to differentiate between nonce-news and people writing about furry widdle brother and sister unicorns who love each other very much. The outcome, therefore, has been pure comedy, with comments that read

  • http://www.livejournal.com/export.bml [livejournal.com]

    If their deletion policy is this random, then it'd be a good idea to get out now.

    Me, I'm going somewhere else - if this is the way lj acts, they've seriously lost my trust, and therefore my financial support.
    • http://www.ljbook.com/ [ljbook.com]

      Go there instead. Makes a nice, pdf posting, including userpics and comments. Granted, you do have to give them your login/pw, but I use them every six months and haven't seen anything out of sorts with them yet.
  • by acherusia (995492) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @02:33AM (#19333427)

    I've been watching this since it started, and what continually amazes me is how poorly livejournal is handling this. Over 24 hours into this, there is no announcement. Nothing reassuring users that their journal won't be next. Nothing apologizing for wiping out the incest survivor's livejournal in their witchhunt. Not even something saying "This is business, deal." The only news livejournallers have heard from livejournal came from an outside news source. [com.com]

    Forget the deletions. People were upset, but would have forgotten it quickly if livejournal had just said "We purged some pedophile rings, but some other stuff may have gotten caught in it. If there are any livejournals purged that were genuinely innocent, tell us." People would've bitched, would have said the sky was falling down, that Livejournal had gone down the tubes since Six Apart bought them, but there wouldn't have been this sort of mass hysteria.

    Now, I'm anticipating the next great fandom migration will be happening a few years sooner than otherwise, and this makes me grumpy, because migrations are a pain in the ass. And it wouldn't be happening any time soon if Livejournal weren't currently doing their level best to make fandom - a group of people who in my experience pay a great deal of money for their playspace - feel unwelcome.

  • Judging from LJ's response to the Nipplegate [blogspot.com] controversy (a troll started complaining about images of breastfeeding mothers and LJ/6Apart started deleting these accounts on the basis that they were sexually explicit) I think its very unlikely that they'll respond to users' complaints. LJ/6Apart has demonstrated itself incapable of responding to user complaints once a 'policy' has been set in spite of evidence and argument to the contrary. If you want to set up a support group for the victims of rape, incest
  • by Draconix (653959) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @03:50AM (#19333793)
    "You said it! They stink on ice!"

  • by Valen0 (325388) <valen@eDEGASscom.us minus painter> on Thursday May 31, 2007 @04:18AM (#19333911)
    Repost from http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html [livejournal.com] ...

    Well we really screwed this one up...

    For reasons we are still trying to figure out what was supposed to be a well planned attempt to clean up a few journals that were violating LiveJournal's policies that protect minors turned into a total mess. I can only say I'm sorry, explain what we did wrong and what we are doing to correct these problems and explain what we were trying to do but messed up so completely.

    What we did wrong;

    1) Over the last couple of days we have suspended (not deleted) about 500 journals out of many millions on LJ.
    2) It is now clear that in an unfortunate number of cases these journals were suspended for easily correctable problems in their profiles that would then allow them to be reinstated and that this was not communicated to the journal or community owners at all.
    3) Further, because of miscommunication these journals were taken down before review could be completed to avoid mistakes.

    How we are fixing it.

    1) Over the next few hours we will review the journals that were taken down and wherever appropriate we will restore these journals or communities before 12 noon PDT. Sorry it will take that long but we do not want to reinstate true and clear violators of community policy.
    2) In some cases Journals that were restored will be asked to clarify their profiles to avoid the appearance that they are soliciting or encouraging illegal activities.
    3) Journals that we do not restore will be journals that we are fairly sure are actually intended to encourage activities that put minors at risk but we will review them if requested by their owner to be certain that we did not make a mistake.
    4) In cases that we ask owners to clarify their profiles and they fail to do so within 7 days we will suspend their journals again.

    So what were we trying to do when we messed up so badly?

    As most of you know, LJ has a zero tolerance policy toward content that supports child abuse, pedophilia, or sexual violence. In implementation of this zero tolerance policy there were two issues that made it hard to apply these policies consistently;

    Issue one was profiles.

    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.

    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 have suspended reported journals that do not clearly and substantially object to these activities while at the same time portraying them.

    We recently received a complaint from outside the community about a number of journals. When we receive such complaints it is our obligation to look into them but it is our sta
    • Translation (Score:5, Funny)

      by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday May 31, 2007 @05:14AM (#19334213)
      Heck, all we wanted was doing our thing in peace. And we know the religious nutjobs ain't gonna get off our back, so we thought, heck, who's gonna get ruffled 'bout a few people who enjoy to shag their sis?

      And what happens? Some guys at /., digg and whatnot start a free speech campaign outta it.

      Lessee... religious nutjobs vs. geeks... The latter have more LJs here and they also got the better hackers, we better back-pedal.

"It is easier to fight for principles than to live up to them." -- Alfred Adler

Working...