not your typical annihilatrix ([info]furiosity) wrote,
@ 2007-08-07 01:24:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:fandom, lj, strikethrough2007

random thought on the suspensions
This has probably been brought up somewhere, but between Prophecy and trying to catch up on my flist, I possibly missed it. I was just reading the LJ FAQ entry on suspended accounts and noticed this:

Account suspensions are generally used by the Abuse Prevention Team as a last resort. In most cases, a user will be provided with an opportunity to delete any content that is in violation of the Terms of Service before his or her account is suspended. Immediate suspensions are done for certain reasons, including but not limited to:

[snip]
* journals where all material is a violation of the Terms of Service.

[snip]
In most cases, users whose journals have been suspended will be unsuspended and provided with a limited time window in which to correct the violations of the Terms of Service. However, some suspended journals will not be reinstated for certain reasons, which include but are not limited to:

[snip]
* journals where all material is a violation of the Terms of Service

So it appears that LJ Abuse Prevention Team staff violated their own fucking guidelines by permanently suspending Ponderosa and Foo, because no way in HELL those journals contained ONLY material in violation of the Terms of Service. Way to FUCKING fail some more, LJ. God.

[This post also on: GJ | JF | IJ]

(29 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]bibliophile20
2007-08-07 05:28 am UTC (link)
Ah, hypocrites. I so dearly love them (when I can use them as skeet)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]furiosity
2007-08-07 05:32 am UTC (link)
Just does not compute to me. I mean, I get that it says "including but not limited to" up there, but if you compare the severity of all the points listed and the severity of posting ONE or TWO questionable artworks to porny communities? I didn't think I could possibly be more disappointed in LJ if I tried.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bibliophile20
2007-08-07 05:35 am UTC (link)
Try anyway. Your opinion of them has hit rock bottom, but you haven't started to dig just yet.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]henpecked
2007-08-07 05:28 am UTC (link)
Oh, LJ, always the classiest of the bunch. Did they ever make that "announcement" they said they would make tonight? I've been refreshing all the comms I thought it might be in, but I haven't seen it yet.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]furiosity
2007-08-07 05:30 am UTC (link)
it's supposed to go up in [info]lj_biz but I can't wait anymore; work tomorrow and it's already 1:30. :\

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]henpecked
2007-08-07 05:32 am UTC (link)
Ah, thank you. Stupid time zones :/ I would say you could check it out when you got up, but why would you want to ruin your whole day like that?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]bribitribbit
2007-08-07 05:32 am UTC (link)
It's pretty late even in California time to make an announcement--10:30.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]scarah2
2007-08-07 07:41 am UTC (link)
Oh hay it's officially Tuesday here on the left coast, and guess what no announcement!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]bribitribbit
2007-08-07 05:34 am UTC (link)
Epic, epic fail. I was having a root beer float when I cam across this post. And now LJ has ruined it.

LJ ruins root beer floats.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]furiosity
2007-08-07 05:34 am UTC (link)
LJ ruins everything. D:

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]joesther
2007-08-07 05:34 am UTC (link)
Kinda anti-logical, isn't it? But just FYI, Pond said just a bit ago that she doesn't want LJ to reinstate her account, even if they decide they're willing. Right here. Frankly, I totally understand her. I wouldn't want to be reinstated either, in her shoes.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]furiosity
2007-08-07 05:38 am UTC (link)
Oh, I don't blame her. After what LJ did to her, she's totally right not to want to return, no matter how much they decide to backpedal.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]letmypidgeonsgo
2007-08-07 05:37 am UTC (link)
and the fail continues...

(Reply to this)


[info]zoepaleologa
2007-08-07 05:45 am UTC (link)
In England we call it 'moving the goalposts'. Twats.

(Reply to this)


[info]yourpoison
2007-08-07 05:50 am UTC (link)
Well, they so helpfully said 'including but not limited to' which basically amounts to them doing whatever they want. But yeah. >___>

(Reply to this)


[info]lurkitty
2007-08-07 06:00 am UTC (link)
Apropos of nothing - I made a little post about the fact that Brad is leaving. He actually dropped by and commented that he is not involved in the day-to-day business affairs of LJ and was only apprised of the situation by Barak today. He has been inundated by emails but has not read/answered them because he doesn't have anything to do with that part of the business.

I believe him and hope people will stop looking to him to intervene. It's not his company anymore.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]acerbic
2007-08-07 01:46 pm UTC (link)
Heh. Brad had done a lot of stupid shit in his time, but nothing anywhere near as much of a fiasco as this, and at least he apologized for the shit he pulled. If he had had anything to do with it, I doubt that it would've gone this far without communications from the top.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]miss_charmed
2007-08-07 06:54 am UTC (link)
How much more can they fail omg. This is almost unbelievable. Something is seriously wrong with this people.

(Reply to this)


[info]samena
2007-08-07 07:00 am UTC (link)
The way I see it, a big corporation like WB says: JUMP and LJ/6A jumps, even if it means disregarding their own guidelines. Very sad, and unfair to the customers.

(Reply to this)


[info]scarlet_malfoy
2007-08-07 08:51 am UTC (link)
Ugh. I am so DISGUSTED. D: Seriously, we need to make hpjournal a reality.

(Reply to this)


[info]daiseechain
2007-08-07 12:53 pm UTC (link)
I've also been comparing the TOS material. I noted that their own TOS contradicts itself in several places. By, for instance, stating that users will be notified and given time to take down offending material, and then stating elsewhere that offensive material will be removed without notification.

Having looked over the TOS closely now, I'm quite concerned by several of their clauses, not least of which is the one which states they can resell our own material back to us... WTF?

(Reply to this)


[info]anthimaeria
2007-08-07 02:25 pm UTC (link)
I don't think that LJ violated the terms of its ToS, at least not in this particular respect. Here's how it left itself room to weasel out:

1. In most cases - Not all cases, so LJ has discretion not to follow this policy.

2. including but not limited to: You saw this. Yep, that means any reason they want, unless it's an illegal reason. "Certain reasons" for non-reinstatement could include that all material violates the ToS- or it could be something else. It's left to LJ to decide.

Does this seem fair? No. Is is legal? Probably.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]furiosity
2007-08-07 02:27 pm UTC (link)
Oh, the "included but not limited to" definitely gives them free rein in doing whatever they want, but as I pointed out to [info]bibliophile20 above, the severity of the infractions, in all cases, provides a context that makes it highly unusual for them to suspend accounts for single instances of ToS violation. I don't dispute that it's legal for them to do whatever they want; they can break their own ToS, certainly; there's no provision hat they can't. Doesn't make them less cunty for doing it, though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]anthimaeria
2007-08-07 02:36 pm UTC (link)
Yes, it is highly unusual and rather inexplicable that they chose immediate suspension in this case. And cunty as well. You would think the suspended user had posted bomb-making instructions or something.

It boggles my mind that she was not given an opportunity to remove the allegedly offending content, or to dispute LJ's claim that it violated LJ policies, before LJ went ahead and suspended her (without even telling her why).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]karaz
2007-08-07 05:17 pm UTC (link)
I like how they think if they add enough "in most cases" and "including but not limited to" then they can legitimately claim that they aren't contrary to the TOS. Pfft. We get the point - they can do what ever the hell they want - but it would be nice if they could share the method of madness. It's so fucking random, I'm starting to think they've got a magic 8 ball.

"Magic 8 ball, should we delete more random Potter fen?" "signs point to yes"

(Reply to this)


[info]grrliz
2007-08-07 11:50 pm UTC (link)
because no way in HELL those journals contained ONLY material in violation of the Terms of Service

Especially since the content they got TOSed for was posted outside their journals, so WTF.

I don't know a ton about what LJ Abuse deals with outside of these particular types of issues, but it really would do them some good to have some sort of training program for dealing with this sort of thing. [And if they already have such a thing in place... er, clearly it needs an overhaul.]

(Reply to this)


[info]cryptoxin
2007-08-08 02:19 am UTC (link)
I keep trying to construct a narrative in which LJ is acting logically and consistently and not in bad faith. And wondering if I'm being masochistic or Pollyanna-ish or just suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Mainly I want a version of LJ that makes sense and isn't evil but has made a lot of mistakes. Because that would leave me with hope that it's still possible for fandom & LJ to find a workable compromise, or at least a livable detente.

I'm going to paste in excerpts from a couple of comments I've made elsewhere:

A. That's been the biggest mystery to me -- why LJ didn't draw a clear line, even if it made LJ more restrictive than it had previously been. My best guess is that they actually wanted an ambiguous policy because they intended to apply a double-standard that would allow them to ban pedophiles while retaining fandom and teens wanting to talk to each other about sex, even when the material in question might look the same to an outsider. At least, that was my best guess up until the recent suspensions.

B. This is me IANALawyering -- I'm guessing that LJ's arrived at a legalistic stance that once they see "proof" of obscenity, they're potentially culpable if they don't immediately act on it.

As in, they feel that:

1) they jeopardize themselves if they provide a grace period where they allow the user to remove objectionable content, and

2) they jeopardize themselves if they assume that the work that's been reported is the only objectionable content posted by that user, and

3) they jeopardize themselves if they go through all of that user's entries to see if the work in question is a one-off or a pattern because they might miss something and thus be viewed as negligent if that later gets reported -- hence they can't afford to assume that one post that they've construed as meeting the obscenity criteria is an isolated incident by the user.


...and despite my best efforts at mindreading LJ, I have no interest in becoming their apologist, and can't fault anybody who's simply had it with them and is ready to move on....

(Reply to this)


[info]kittehkat
2007-08-09 03:58 am UTC (link)
Hey, F... I was reading around and saw this. Has there been more discussion on it? I've missed it if there has. :\

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]furiosity
2007-08-09 04:00 am UTC (link)
I've seen random comments here and there on my flist (mostly of the "OMGWTF ARE THEY ON CRACK???" variety), but nothing posty or anything like that. :\

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(29 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…