Further Exchange with the LJ Abuse Team

[kennahijja]

After getting their last response, basically directing me to the lj_biz Post of Uninformation, I fired off some more questions, and also, after seeing that pornish_pixies was still unable to get clarifications on their questions (and they were the foremost under attack) suggested that the Abuse Team/whoever might answer their questions rather than mine. I was an eversoslightly bit shirty, and have no clue whether that provoked the prompt response... It might shed some (though not encouraging) more light on the mind-boggling links question, and a bit on fanfic. Of course, this isn't 'official' policy, and we've seen how much even explicit 'official' policy has been worth before...).

I've rearranged (and bolded) responses to fit together with the questions, no more modifications, although you've got to take my word for it as Support Abuse Requests are set private.

I'm sorry, but the most recent lj_biz post isn't dealing with *fannish content*, but with child pornography, and therefore leaves open no end of questions, most of which I've already posed in my previous post. I summarise again quickly (but honestly, if you could answer these things for Femmequixotic of Pornish_Pixies, rather than for me, that would make a great number of fandom people perfectly happy)

Dear LiveJournal user kennahijja,

For the sake of simplicity, I will address your questions and concerns in the order you have asked them.

* Why were Ponderosa 121 and Elaboration deleted for artwork *not* showing underage fictional character, when your only concern is underage fictional characters?
* Why has Ponderosa's account not been restored yet?

Regarding your first two points, we cannot comment on the specific conditions under which any user has been suspended with anyone other than that user.

* Why does LJ not follow its own TOS when dealing with alleged inappropriate content?
[Quote: "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."]

Regarding the third, please note the presence of the word 'might' in the statement you have quoted. Please also refer to the Terms of Service (http://www.livejournal.com/legal/tos.bml), in the Member conduct section (Section XVI.) which clearly states at the bottom of the section "If LiveJournal determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that any user is in violation of the TOS, LiveJournal retains the right to terminate such user's account at any time without prior notice."

* The TOS advocate friends settings as a means of protecting controversial content - why does this suddenly not apply any more (you say that even private content is no longer safe)?

Regarding the fourth, there is no statement in the Terms of Service which states that altering the security level of an entry will make it more compliant with the TOS. Serious violations of the Terms of Service will be acted upon regardless of an entry's security settings if a credible report indicates such a violation is present on LiveJournal. Lesser violations are, however, not viewed or acted upon.

* Will links to stories/artwork on archieves with less restrictive policies than LJ will also be a suspense-incurring offence (no, we're not talking *illegal* child pornography, we're talking fannish art/fiction that isn't illegal *outside* LJ)?

Regarding the fifth, this depends on numerous factors. In general, linking to offsite content that would be in violation of LiveJournal's Terms of Service will be handled more leniently than posting the actual material to LiveJournal. In most cases, a first offense would result in a takedown notice being issued as opposed to suspension.

* When will the change in policy (that not only content prohibited by law, but also material deemed unwanted by LJ can get one TOSsed) make it into the TOS and be annouced to the userbase as a whole (who should *know* in the first place to be able to comply)?

Regarding the sixth, the Abuse Prevention Team is not responsible for outward facing communication such as this, and can offer no details as to if or when such an announcement would occur.

* What is the new policy on *stories* about fictional underage charactes in sexual situations? I need to know this. A lot of people need to know this. Femmequixotic from Pornish_Pixies *urgently* needs to know this. *Before* any of us get deleted for being actively kept in the dark by LJ!

Regarding the seventh, the policy is more lenient in situations of text than with images. A story does not violate the policy simply by having minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct as would be the case with images, nor is there any evaluation of literary or artistic merit done. Specifically, a story would have to qualify as a violation of Part I.b or I.c of the policy as outlined at http://community.livejournal.com/lj_biz/241884.html to qualify, whereas images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct are being treated as violations of I.a.

No report of content which we would considered a fannish work has qualified as a violation of this policy to date. Please note that this does not necessarily mean no such content may be present on LiveJournal. We have, however, received reports of fandom related material which involved minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and none thus far has qualified as a violation of I.b or I.c.

* How will LJ/6A guarantee that in the future, policies will be made clear and you will follow your own TOS when dealing with alleged violations? Because frankly, your promises/reassurances haven't been worth tosh so far, and people are leaving in droves because of it.

Regarding your final point, the Terms of Service have been followed. We, as the Abuse Prevention Team, cannot comment on what actions LiveJournal or Six Apart may take to improve communication of policy changes, as our primary role is merely to enforce such policies. Specific to us, however, there is intent to make the page at http://www.livejournal.com/abuse/policy.bml current in the near future, as well as updating relevant FAQs.

Regards,
[name deleted by me]
LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team

Comments

[snapelike.livejournal.com]

"No report of content which we would considered a fannish work has qualified as a violation of this policy to date. Please note that this does not necessarily mean no such content may be present on LiveJournal. We have, however, received reports of fandom related material which involved minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and none thus far has qualified as a violation of I.b or I.c. "

But that is not true. One test case (HP/SS fic) some weeks ago did qualify indeed, only the person who had sent in the case had cleverly moved it off LJ's server, and wasn't ToSed for it, as I remembered it.

[kennahijja.livejournal.com]

And I seem to remember a Ron/Fred/George fic on p_p that also had to be removed two or so years ago.

[kennahijja.livejournal.com]

Also, what would you infer from the statement:

"If this and that happens, I might do procedure X"?

a) on the other hand, I might not do procedure X
b) on the other hand, I might do procedure Y, which is a hundred times worse.

My English isn't good enough for that sort of thing...

[narcissa-malfoy.livejournal.com]

Weird how none of us non-native speakers were offered a class to decipher nonsensical statements. It is clearly a fault of the education system.

[ldybastet.livejournal.com]

Well, in LJ-speak it means that they might do X if they for some reason felt inclined to do so, but it's not very probable, and instead they will do something completely different.

IMO, it's total BS to interpret it that way though, but that is the way they handle things, and also what they protect themselves with when cornered.

[snapelike.livejournal.com]

I think it means: 'Fuck you, child pornographers, no matter medium, and the underage Centaur you rode in on. And we don't care if you paint a pic of Dumbly doing Minerva! We *know* what you were thinking when you draw it! We'll TOS you at a whim, closely connected to how much money we can earn by looking morally superior in the eye of the WFI public!'

Or something like that, just more diplomatically put...

[snorkackcatcher]

It means (a), but has to be taken in conjunction with the other bit they quoted -- basically "we can kick you out at any time if we think you've broken the rules, we decide that, and we don't have to warn you first" -- which is much more general and makes the overall implication (b).

[karaontai.livejournal.com]

LOL -- sorry no offense -- native speakers english wouldn't be good enough to sort through this! It is typical legal talk -- only people with a law degree can/will understand this ever!!!!!! :-0

Did you reply back to them: And now in English, please? ;-)

[liriaen.livejournal.com]

I fear I have nothing worthy of a comment to comment and as such shouldn't - but, for the record: what the hell. They claim an awful lot of self-allotted leeway to navigate between "official" statements (or the lack thereof), ToS, and everyday policy here.

Doesn't it remind you a bit of Big Brother raising the chocolate rations from 20 grams to 25 grams ((or something) while Smith clearly remembered they were 50 grams before)? *haarerauf*