![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kennahijjaFirst, pimp: ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
femmequixotic from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
pornish_pixies has posted an Open Letter to LJ raising a lot of crucial questions to which a lot of us would like an answer right now, I think. Pimp on, if you want to - maybe it'll improve chances for a clear answer?
And... I actually got a reply to my complaint/automatic payment turnoff from a very friendly woman...
a) directing me to the recent post onlj_biz here.
b) apologising for the problematic communication with the userbase on LJ's part
c) stating that LJ's goal is only to target fictional adult/minor content (without, however, making a difference between fan fiction and fanart).
Now I have my *huge* issues with the 'clarifications' in the post above (beyond the fact that it gives me a faulty script warning that nearly unhinges the computer every time), so this was my response:
Thank you very much for your reply. I have, indeed, read the response from LJ management in lj-biz and am afraid that it still leaves me confused to a considerable extent.
Part of confusion arises because the clarification post focuses almost exclusively on content that contains a "graphic visual depiction of a minor [...] engaged in sexually explicit conduct". The suspensions/deletions of users Ponderosa 121 and Elaboration, however, were *not* over such content, but over graphic visual depictions of non-minor fictional characters deemed (according to your subjective definition) 'without artistic merit'. If visual depictions of fictional minors are the target of this recent 'policy innovation', why were those two women suspended in the first place? I too very strongly desire the elimination of *real* child porn from Livejournal, but going after fandom fic and art will not make the tiniest step towards that commendable goal.
There are, however, still a lot of open questions which, frankly, make it impossible for me to consider Livejournal as a long-term perspective.
1) The lj-biz post (on graphic material) deals exclusively with underage characters in fandom artworks. Does that mean that all the surrounding aspects of the deletions – possible charges of 'obscenity' to be evaluated by a committee asking questions about 'artistic merit' were mis-interpretations/over-reactions on LJ's part and will not reappear as issues? If so, when will Ponderosa121's and Elaboration's journals be restored? If not, when will LJ management clarify/explain that issue?
2) The LJ Terms of Service explicitly describe the procedure dealing with offensive/inappropriate content as follows: "Should any Content that you have authored be reported to LiveJournal as being offensive or inappropriate, LiveJournal might call upon you to retract, modify, or protect (by means of private and friends only settings) the Content in question within a reasonable amount of time, as determined by the LiveJournal staff. Should you fail to meet such a request from LiveJournal staff, LiveJournal may terminate your account." Why was this procedure not followed either during Strikethrough, nor this time round? None of the fandom writers and artists targetted were called upon, asked to modify/delete/protect the 'offending' material, nor given a reasonable time frame. Not only was the content in question deleted, but also their accounts (in the current cases, including *all* accounts, not only the one reported) – without notification or warning. This behaviour seems to be in direct violation of your TOS.
Moreover, the most recent 'clarifications' in the lj-biz post, specifying
a) that private/friends-only settings will be treated no differenly from public settings, which the TOS explicitly name as an option of dealing with 'offensive' content
b) that there can be no warnings as "Content that meets this definition is likely to be illegal under child pornography laws so we cannot continue to host it." This is perfectly acceptable for child pornography (i.e. actual illegal content). However, it obviously doesn't apply to material which you, yourself, describe as content which "itself is not illegal and may be protected by the First Amendment". How about warnings (or just plain following your TOS) for whatever is *not* illegal (i.e. practically everything fandom-related)?
Moreover, both the TOS and the clarification are talking about "illegal content" that will be removed – why are you (again in violation of the TOS) deleting and banning entire journals (multiple journals even) rather than removing (or asking the account holder to remove) the offending "content"?
Considering that the lj-biz post explicitly states you won't be changing the TOS to reflect your new policies, how can you explain these glaring contradictions without purposefully misleading new and old users relying on the TOS as a guideline for their postings on LJ?
Also, how is "Written material -- fictional or not -- is also subject to Federal laws. But as we stated in a previous post, over the years we've looked at thousands of reported journals and communities and we rarely have come across a case of creative fiction or fanfic text that warrants review" supposed to be in any way reassuring to fan writers, considering that before the current 2007 debacles LJ hasn't gone after fan art either? What guarantees can you give that your position on written fictional material will not also change without warning and people won't be summarily deleted then?
My greatest problem with LJ at the moment is it's extreme lack of credibility. Over the last months, you have promised many things to your userbase: no more account terminations without warning, no targetting of fandom/fannish content (i.e. writings/art about fictional characters), clarity about prohibited content. All of those promises have broken only weeks later (as in continued account deletions without warning, prohibiting fannish content and linking it - against US/Californian law - with disgusting *real* criminal activity, and refusing to answer important questions).
Instead, you have acted in violation of your own TOS, changed your policies without notifying your users *and* then punished some of them retroactively in a draconian and highly dodgy manner. Your current policies aren't in accordance with your TOS either.
This has created an atmosphere of confusion, outrage and active intimidation for users who remain unsure what they can post, with no safeguards in place to ensure that more accounts won't be tossed without warning should you decide to further restrict whatever it is you deem acceptable now. I have a hard time interpreting LJ's current policy as anything else but a blanket intimidation attempt, trying to force users into self-censorship out of sheer insecurity.
I do indeed have further questions – whether linking to stories/artwork on archieves with less restrictive policies than LJ will also be a suspense-incurring offence, whether the new restrictions will be applied retroactively (i.e. does it also apply to stories/artwork posted *before* May/August 2007), etc. – but frankly, since LJ/6A obviously feels bound neither by last month's reassurances and promises nor by their own TOS, any answer I may receive is tainted by the fact that it's worthless.
Under such circumstances, I'm afraid I no longer have any faith in whatever LJ representatives keep saying (which is *not* meant as an insult to you in person, who, for all I know, are a honest person caught up in a very bad situation). But unless LJ starts to lay down its rules clearly and in a way that users can actually determine *beforehand* what might be a tossable offence rather than finding out after having been tossed, and considers itself *bound* to its policies, I'll keep my basic account, my backups, my mirror journal on Greatestjournal, and look forward to leaving LJ for a fandom-owned server in the long run.
femmequixotic from pornish_pixies has posted an Open Letter to LJ raising a lot of crucial questions to which a lot of us would like an answer right now, I think. Pimp on, if you want to - maybe it'll improve chances for a clear answer?And... I actually got a reply to my complaint/automatic payment turnoff from a very friendly woman...
a) directing me to the recent post on
lj_biz here.b) apologising for the problematic communication with the userbase on LJ's part
c) stating that LJ's goal is only to target fictional adult/minor content (without, however, making a difference between fan fiction and fanart).
Now I have my *huge* issues with the 'clarifications' in the post above (beyond the fact that it gives me a faulty script warning that nearly unhinges the computer every time), so this was my response:
Thank you very much for your reply. I have, indeed, read the response from LJ management in lj-biz and am afraid that it still leaves me confused to a considerable extent.
Part of confusion arises because the clarification post focuses almost exclusively on content that contains a "graphic visual depiction of a minor [...] engaged in sexually explicit conduct". The suspensions/deletions of users Ponderosa 121 and Elaboration, however, were *not* over such content, but over graphic visual depictions of non-minor fictional characters deemed (according to your subjective definition) 'without artistic merit'. If visual depictions of fictional minors are the target of this recent 'policy innovation', why were those two women suspended in the first place? I too very strongly desire the elimination of *real* child porn from Livejournal, but going after fandom fic and art will not make the tiniest step towards that commendable goal.
There are, however, still a lot of open questions which, frankly, make it impossible for me to consider Livejournal as a long-term perspective.
1) The lj-biz post (on graphic material) deals exclusively with underage characters in fandom artworks. Does that mean that all the surrounding aspects of the deletions – possible charges of 'obscenity' to be evaluated by a committee asking questions about 'artistic merit' were mis-interpretations/over-reactions on LJ's part and will not reappear as issues? If so, when will Ponderosa121's and Elaboration's journals be restored? If not, when will LJ management clarify/explain that issue?
2) The LJ Terms of Service explicitly describe the procedure dealing with offensive/inappropriate content as follows: "Should any Content that you have authored be reported to LiveJournal as being offensive or inappropriate, LiveJournal might call upon you to retract, modify, or protect (by means of private and friends only settings) the Content in question within a reasonable amount of time, as determined by the LiveJournal staff. Should you fail to meet such a request from LiveJournal staff, LiveJournal may terminate your account." Why was this procedure not followed either during Strikethrough, nor this time round? None of the fandom writers and artists targetted were called upon, asked to modify/delete/protect the 'offending' material, nor given a reasonable time frame. Not only was the content in question deleted, but also their accounts (in the current cases, including *all* accounts, not only the one reported) – without notification or warning. This behaviour seems to be in direct violation of your TOS.
Moreover, the most recent 'clarifications' in the lj-biz post, specifying
a) that private/friends-only settings will be treated no differenly from public settings, which the TOS explicitly name as an option of dealing with 'offensive' content
b) that there can be no warnings as "Content that meets this definition is likely to be illegal under child pornography laws so we cannot continue to host it." This is perfectly acceptable for child pornography (i.e. actual illegal content). However, it obviously doesn't apply to material which you, yourself, describe as content which "itself is not illegal and may be protected by the First Amendment". How about warnings (or just plain following your TOS) for whatever is *not* illegal (i.e. practically everything fandom-related)?
Moreover, both the TOS and the clarification are talking about "illegal content" that will be removed – why are you (again in violation of the TOS) deleting and banning entire journals (multiple journals even) rather than removing (or asking the account holder to remove) the offending "content"?
Considering that the lj-biz post explicitly states you won't be changing the TOS to reflect your new policies, how can you explain these glaring contradictions without purposefully misleading new and old users relying on the TOS as a guideline for their postings on LJ?
Also, how is "Written material -- fictional or not -- is also subject to Federal laws. But as we stated in a previous post, over the years we've looked at thousands of reported journals and communities and we rarely have come across a case of creative fiction or fanfic text that warrants review" supposed to be in any way reassuring to fan writers, considering that before the current 2007 debacles LJ hasn't gone after fan art either? What guarantees can you give that your position on written fictional material will not also change without warning and people won't be summarily deleted then?
My greatest problem with LJ at the moment is it's extreme lack of credibility. Over the last months, you have promised many things to your userbase: no more account terminations without warning, no targetting of fandom/fannish content (i.e. writings/art about fictional characters), clarity about prohibited content. All of those promises have broken only weeks later (as in continued account deletions without warning, prohibiting fannish content and linking it - against US/Californian law - with disgusting *real* criminal activity, and refusing to answer important questions).
Instead, you have acted in violation of your own TOS, changed your policies without notifying your users *and* then punished some of them retroactively in a draconian and highly dodgy manner. Your current policies aren't in accordance with your TOS either.
This has created an atmosphere of confusion, outrage and active intimidation for users who remain unsure what they can post, with no safeguards in place to ensure that more accounts won't be tossed without warning should you decide to further restrict whatever it is you deem acceptable now. I have a hard time interpreting LJ's current policy as anything else but a blanket intimidation attempt, trying to force users into self-censorship out of sheer insecurity.
I do indeed have further questions – whether linking to stories/artwork on archieves with less restrictive policies than LJ will also be a suspense-incurring offence, whether the new restrictions will be applied retroactively (i.e. does it also apply to stories/artwork posted *before* May/August 2007), etc. – but frankly, since LJ/6A obviously feels bound neither by last month's reassurances and promises nor by their own TOS, any answer I may receive is tainted by the fact that it's worthless.
Under such circumstances, I'm afraid I no longer have any faith in whatever LJ representatives keep saying (which is *not* meant as an insult to you in person, who, for all I know, are a honest person caught up in a very bad situation). But unless LJ starts to lay down its rules clearly and in a way that users can actually determine *beforehand* what might be a tossable offence rather than finding out after having been tossed, and considers itself *bound* to its policies, I'll keep my basic account, my backups, my mirror journal on Greatestjournal, and look forward to leaving LJ for a fandom-owned server in the long run.
