Mass Deletion Leads To LiveJournal Revolt 436
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."
Keep up the good work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Keep up the good work (Score:5, Funny)
-----
0x14CE57
Re:Keep up the good work (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Keep up the good work (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Keep up the good work (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Keep up the good work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fandom constitutes a great part of the lj stakeholders and it's fandom that SixApart have annoyed by deleting discussion, fanfic and adult communities. Those are the people buying paid accounts for their communities, themselves, and their friends. If SixApart don't do anything to alleviate the situation, all those people are just going to claim they are 18+ and move over to JournalFen (a lot have done it already).
Forgot to add another point: fandom is a raunchy little beast and if darker adult them
Re:Keep up the good work (Score:5, Insightful)
I've got news for you: it's still censorship, and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's right or acceptable. For some people, that "fucking hobby" can make a huge difference in their lives. I know several sexual abuse survivors who deal with their issues by discussing them in blogs and forums, and their support structure was torn away when some "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" asshole decided that they were offended by such things and went running to mommy screaming about some imagined slight.
Think before you open your mouth and consider the fact that sneering at other peoples' chosen form of communication just makes you look like an elitist asshole.
Re:Keep up the good work (Score:5, Insightful)
You also must not be too aware of how tightly knit a lot of the LJ community is. A friend of a friend being unjustly punished will still draw scorn and lots of it. As a matter of fact that's likely the exact reason you're hearing of it here.
Re: (Score:2)
Eyeball$ (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Keep up the good work (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:Keep up the good work (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me be the first to say "incest" (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Let me be the first to say "incest" (Score:4, Interesting)
Egyptian pharaohs used to marry their own sisters. Several communities in Asia and Africa marry their own first siblings, cousins, or uncles marry their nieces.
While western culture may forbid it, the world doesn't necessarily revolve around western civilizations.
Morality is seldom absolute and in this case, it's quite relative (sorry, bad pun).
Re:Let me be the first to say "incest" (Score:4, Informative)
Egyptian pharaohs used to marry their own sisters.
To be fair, they didn't actually have sex with their siblings, they just married them because of obscure power-sharing rules and stuff. Both the men and the women in such arrangements had other people to share their (separate) beds.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Incest is awesome! (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Incest is awesome! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The parent is not offtopic, either in the thread nest or even in relation to the news article. Troll, overrated, funny or God help us Informative, yes. Offtopic? No. Incest is very much the topic at hand.
And as I was an only child, I guess to have incest with a sibling, I have to go fuck myself
Re:Incest is awesome! (Score:4, Informative)
This is perhaps the most disturbing semi-serious reply I've ever had to make.
Incest? (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of the children! To hell with the rest.
Re:Incest? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Incest? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Slavery (a little rape) [thebricktestament.com]
Incest specifically [thebricktestament.com]
How to properly commit warcrimes including rape [thebricktestament.com]
God demands animal sacrifice for menstration and ejactulation [thebricktestament.com]
Re:Incest? (Score:5, Insightful)
--
Support EMI and iTunes Plus, show the big labels
that DRM-free music works. Boycott the rest.
Re:Incest? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people would not object to two people with a genetic disability falling in love, etc. The objection - the one you might make if you believe you have the right to tell two informed, consenting adults what to do, that is - is centered around breeding. Breeding can be controlled. The problem for society is those people on the left side of the gaussian who fail to exert such control... still, if we're not going to tell people with congenital defects they can't have relationships, it pretty much torpedos the rational arguments against incest and turns them into classed prejudice instead of reason.
Re:Incest? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Normal" is a well defined statistical term. Specifically in most circumstances, "normal" refers to the statistical mean of some value among individuals in a population.
What most people don't understand is that the normal, in and of itself, is not really very representative of the population. In fact, in almost all cases, there are no individuals in the entire population who's value agrees with the normal or mean. Best example, families have on average 1.69 children, but there is no one family with 1 and 69 hundredths children. Normal height could be, say, 6ft, but if you went around measuring people's height with a laser, you would likely never find someone who was precisely 6ft. They'd be ~5.999ft or ~6.0001ft.
The probability of finding an individual conforming to the mean, or indeed any value, is statistically zero. (Specifically, the normal is a point on a probability distribution of Lebesgue measure zero, but I digress.)
A better statistical measure of a population is it's variance, in conjunction with its normal or mean. With both of these values, you can give accurate estimations of the probability that someone's height will be between 5.5ft and 6ft, or whether they will have 1 or two children. Variance is almost never quoted, but it is as vital a statistic as the mean itself. Without it, the mean is a relatively useless statistic.
The mean of a randomly selected number between 4 and 8 is 6, the same as the mean of height in most populations. Height is not random, and has a different variance, but most modern junk news reports essentially do not distinguish between a random variable and a normally distributed one.
Effectively, when most people hear a statistic about the normal, average or mean, they probably implicitly assume that the variance is close to zero, in other words that the vast majority of the population hugs very close to the mean. In the age of mass production, it's easy to see why people who see row upon row of identical goods would think that human beings are essentially all equivalent with only exceptionally minor difference and the occasional "dud" here and there.
But humanity is much more diverse than most people are willing to admit. Yes we mostly have two hands and two eyes, etc, but the variation in our habits, temperaments, preferences, heights, weights, talents and skills. I'm not a eugenicist who only sees a one dimensional bell curve of humanity. I see a distribution with thousands if not millions of axes, and I think that the variation and diversity in humanity is a benefit to everyone, and that everyone can potentially put their individual talents to good use. Most people don't agree with this. They think we should try to shift the mean to "improve" the whole population. Instead what we should really be trying to do is increase the variance, on all the axes.
The internet is helping to increase the variance in our populations. People are better able to find things they enjoy and are good at rather than be corralled into the bottom end of a bureaucrat's bell curve. The internet enables people. Some people don't like this. They want "normality". They want a smaller variance. They want to feel secure. They'll use examples like incest, pedophiles, terrorists, etc, etc to frighten others away from the potential of the internet. They say they want to make "the children" etc, safer, but what they really want is the entire population to have a smaller variance, to be like those rows and rows of perfectly identical widgets. They don't do this because they are evil, they do it because they are afraid.
All across the world the internet is being censored, reduced and reigned in by both governments and by companies like Livejournal. They are getting away with it because people have put their trust these entities, and by and large, support their actions. Most people don't want that higher variance. Most people you speak to will support Livejournal here. It's a depressing statement but the fact is that the majority of the population will never see the connection between the hysteria over "deviant" groups online and the slow loss of their own rights in that sphere. A great number of them simply will not care.
Re:Incest? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh well (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. A cheap hosting account and WordPress. Problem solved. NEXT.
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh well (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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:5, Interesting)
On the Internet, you can have as many copies of your house as you like. This will make it a lot harder for any mayor to burn it down. And your connectivity to your friends is not limited by location, but by protocol. If you stop using a proprietary site-specific protocol to communicate with your friends, and use an open one instead, it doesn't matter where your friends are located.
Infrastructure as you call it, which is single-site only, is not really Internet Infrastructure. It's proprietary infrastructure.
Of course it isn't in the interest of blog-hosting sites to facilitate blog-site interoperability, so such an invention has to come from other parties.
I used Usenet a lot in the past, and I'm sad to admit that I don't go there much these days, although I know the groups I participated in still thrive and have strong communities. However, I have found a few webbased boards for some topics that interest me. Boards that are very useful. Also some wikis.
However, an unpleasant experience in the past caused me to think about this issue. Let me explain the experience first. I visited often a place for Danish skeptics, skeptica.dk. At one point a third interested party offered the site to host a forum for the site. However, after a while, the third party, being part of a movement that suddenly found themselves under the conspicous eyes of skepticism, and received a lot of flak on the forum, their motivation being questioned etc. Naturally, one day the forum owner shut down the forum. Poof - gone. All the other relevant debate was suddenly inaccessible.
This could never have happened with Usenet. Why? Because of the distributed nature of Usenet. This is the LOCKSS project principle at work again. Lots Of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe.
We need two things:
1) A way to distribute blog hosting, so that a blog can't be shut down by a strike against a single hosting service. I don't have a solution at hand for that.
2) A way to distribute blog and web forum comments, so that the comments are distributed in a shared framework for all types of forums. I believe the existing and proven Usenet technology is easily adapted for this purpose, although RSS might also play a role. For example, a new hierarchy, similar to the IANA OID hierarchy, or the Java package hierarchy, using DNS names at the top level, could be used. This way, suppose I have myblog, and you have yourblog. So you post an entry about Java and OOP on your blog: it ends up in a newsgroup, blog.your.org.java, and perhaps you even tag it with the OOP category, so it also is crossposted to blog.your.org.oop.
I post a response on my blog: blog.my.org.programming (because I lump it all into one category), and also crosspost to your blog newsgroups. In addition, I call it to attention to the existing Usenet community by crossposting to usenet.comp.lang.java.misc.
Of course, there has to be some additions to make this work. Perhaps a way to subscribe to your blog newsfeed. Authentication and authorization. Anonymity/Pseudonymity. Etc.
I believe this could bring the known synergy effect from Usenet back into play by making a new unified, but distributed, framework for Internet-based discussion. A kind of Babel-tower project, I suppose. Discussion would again be uniformly searchable (presuming Google would carry all the groups), and foremost: a discussion would not be orphaned when the forum goes down. I visited a great Joomla forum daily until recently, but it went down for maintenance and hasn't been up for a few weeks due to problems. Terrible. What if slashdot.org went down?
Again, as for-profit hosting services will not win much - if anything - from this an approach, they will have to be forced to use it by user demand.
Any takers? This idea is free for anyone to use. But please only one project - having different models would defeat the entire purpose.
-Lasse Hillerøe Petersen
Re:Oh well (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh well (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
On the spectrum of free speech from the least protected to the most sacred you have:
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh well (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Digg-style rebellion? (Score:5, Funny)
Let's show solidarity with them:
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Re:Digg-style rebellion? (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, that's a disgusting way to show solidarity. 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0 totally sleeps with 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c1.
"Warriors for Innocence"? (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:"Warriors for Innocence"? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"Warriors for Innocence"? (Score:5, Funny)
OMG - incest!</satire>
Re: (Score:2)
I vote we all go register "Raping WfI members and their children" as an interest on our LJ's
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry about that.
I don't see why LiveJournal is doing this. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't see why LiveJournal is doing this. (Score:4, Funny)
"Think of the children... not THAT way!?!"
User-created sites (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about a small minority of the LJ community here.
Re: (Score:2)
Shopping mall analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
once danga got bought out by sixapart, things started falling to shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
I'm not sure I follow (Score:5, Funny)
This Thread... (Score:3, Funny)
As much as I would like to NOT think about this (Score:2)
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,
Re:As much as I would like to NOT think about this (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:As much as I would like to NOT think about this (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say it is largely made up of reliveing "the glory days" when said 40 year old was actually fairly attractive. Most people are never more physically attractive than they were when they were 16-17. Now they are fat and old and want to imagine that they and/or their lover are still young and buff. And if finding girls in their late teens sexy is so rare as to be a perversion, why is the working age of female models 16-25? http://forums.models.com/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=2
Deleting content based on keywords? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, who's the next LiveJournal? (Score:2)
Reminds me of an old saying... (Score:2)
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)
Incest has been around since the dawn of time (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Proving once again, (Score:2)
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
Spuller (Score:2)
Anyone know where he moved to ?
Warren Ellis said it best (Score:2)
Go here to export your Livejournal content (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Livejournal is a fool. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Revolt unlikely (Score:2)
The Livejournal users are revolting! (Score:3, Funny)
Six Apart's CEO Speaks Out... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
And what happens? Some guys at
Lessee... religious nutjobs vs. geeks... The latter have more LJs here and they also got the better hackers, we better back-pedal.
Re:discussing incest is illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:discussing incest is illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget discussing rape (Score:3, Insightful)
Because, of course, discussing something must mean actively encouraging and promoting it, right? If the context of the post/account/community says otherwise clearly enough that anyone without anencephaly could figure it out, why, that
Re:Freedom of speech or? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good idea. All the humans in the world will police the internet, and try to remove any objectionable content. In fact, I think we should have this internet-neighborhood-watch group centered in one country for easy administration. I pick Iran. The Mullahs can help determine what should be off-limits. Any objections?
ps - your ideas frighten me
Re:Freedom of speech or? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hang on, for emphasis, let me quote you again.
Well, in a general sense, I suppose many would be better off if they thought a bit before they spoke, or didn't just blurt out any old thing, but that's not really your point is it? Your point is that we shouldn't really have freedom of speech, should we? Our declarations should be subject to approval by appropriate persons, yes?
So you're saying that only "wise and learned" people should have the ability to preach to the masses? That our fragile minds are too weak to resist "corruption" by unscrupulous fools with internet access? That we should all become police informants against people who don't tow the line?
Of course, I imagine you'll deny my observation's of your post. Say that I'm putting words in your mouth, etc, etc. You won't even have the integrity to come right out and say what you really believe in. I would not agree with you, but I could at least respect that you have an opinion and aren't afraid to say it.
People like you are the greatest threat to our society. You are the cancer within that gnaws at the foundations that previous generations worked so hard to build. The sad fact is you don't like our free society very much, or at least, while you may enjoy your own freedoms and luxuries, you feel uncomfortable about extending those freedoms to everyone, regardless of class, race, creed or colour.
I think the people in the world we loosely classify as "right wing" could be better described as those who believe in and desire a caste system for our society, where the "right" kind of people enjoy freedom, democracy, prosperity, etc, and where the "wrong" kind of people are "protected" or "supervised" or whatever other euphemisms for serfdom and slavery are in vogue at the moment. There's probably some kind of evolutionary psychology explanation for this. It would be interesting to explore why such a mentality exists.
You need to accept that you are such a person. You need to have the integrity to voice your opinions openly instead of hiding them behind insidious and equivocal language. That at least an honest person could respect. Sure your opinions might be unpopular, but at least they'll be your honest opinions, and not a false facade. You'll be better off in the long run, and so will society.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I totally agree. I want to report you and your posts. I hope your ability to post is quickly removed. Sorry. It's not censorship, just the neighborhood watch doing its job. Nothing personal.