You Fail LJ

[lyore]

AGH. LJ is at it again.

I just... agh. I was defending them last time, I believed their apology, and now this? I'm so glad I didn't cave to temptation to get a permanent account - at least I can stop paying them money. Anyone know how to turn off autopayments? (It annoys me that I just renewed, but I suppose I can console myself with the thought that I'm not seeing their precious advertiser's ads in the meantime.)

Plus, doing this just after changing the way deleted journals are displayed? Subtle, guys.

(And is anyone else slightly suspicious that they've only (AFAIK) gone after content with homosexual content/overtones? Just sayin'.)

I know this is going to fuel the 'let's all leave LJ' debate. I'd be sorry to go - my friends are here, my communities are here, not to mention a few years worth of entries. But I'll follow the fandom - that's why I'm here, after all. Of course, we could all hang around waiting for everyone else to leave and never get anywhere :)

I have heard a few people mention trying to get some sort of 'switch over date' consenus, which would be interesting (both to implement and watch. Organising Fandom = Herding Cats). Still, given the current political/social climate, especially in the US, I'm not convinced any of the other journal-hosting services would be better.

Anyway. I'm Lyore on InsaneJournal and GreatestJournal, for those of you with journals/backups/name claims over there.

On a slightly happier topic, I have discovered Chris Eccleston is going to be the Black Rider in the Dark is Rising adaption. OTOH, they are changing the name to The Seeker: The Dark is Rising. I'm not sure what the rationale behind this is, unless they are trying to tap into the Harry Potter connotations of the word Seeker. But, Chris Eccleston.

Hmm. Speaking of The Dark is Rising I think it is definitely time I re-read the books.

Comments

[almostsophie.livejournal.com]

I think I said last time around that LJ, being a business, has the right to decide what they will host on their servers. It doesn't matter whether it's flocked or not, LJ doesn't have to store it if they don't want to. Freedom of speech only applies to public spaces and the government. (The erosion of public space is one of my pet peeves, but I digress.) I may disagree with LJ's decisions about what to ban, but I don't own the servers. I do think that the way this is all being done stinks. Either they learned nothing last time or they intended to be dicks.

What really has me angry is their new safety tips for teens page in which they advise teens not to lead predators on, lest they make themselves targets. While it is good sense not to talk about sex with strangers, I doubt whether a serious predator would start with the sex talk. I read somewhere (I must find the reference) that most groomers insist they only want to talk about the teen as a person, until they have an emotional hold on them. Most child sex abuse is perpetrated by someone the child knows, but I have yet to see any large-scale public outrage over that. Where are the newspaper editorials about the evils of family reunions?

Sorry for the long comment, it's just a triggery topic for me. I think I'm too tired and possibly tipsy to really think this through right now. (Alright! Drunk LJ commenting! What a concept!)

[lyore.livejournal.com]

No, I agree. LJ has the right to host or not host whatever they want - but I find their implementation and the obscuration around their policy almost offensive. (Full ranty comment on this above (http://lyore.livejournal.com/61921.html?thread=412129#t412129) - you're not the only one this is a hot topic for *g*)

I didn't read their safety tips link. But you're right - and I think that might be one of the arguments about the Perverted Justice campaign, that they take the focus away from the larger 'threat'.

[almostsophie.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as stand-offish. I did understand that we agree but I forgot to say so. The lack of clarification, warnings, or communication of any kind is definitely offensive, but the TOS state that they can permanently suspend users without warning. If they cared at all about having a good relationship with their users they'd ask users to take material down rather than banning them, but really they just care about selling content to advertisers.

The safety tips really set me off because of personal experience, alas. The wording was atrocious.