New LJ Policy
New policy is up at draft policy page (compare to current policies here); they said that they want conversation (and should complete the consultation process by "the end of May"--contrast with the 100 day plan of "Establish a clear set of policy guidelines by mid-March).
My thoughts:
Not gonna bother. I did my arguing last round (Last several rounds?) I asked lots of questions about definitions. They were ignored. I've still got two open support requests, being ignored for a couple of months now.
From the initial staff comments in the "discussion," it's obvious that there will be no definition of "sexually explicit"--it'll be assumed that "you know it when you see it." Or at least, "we know it when we see it." There will be no definition of "minor" in relation to art--staff will decide if art depicts a minor based on their own biases, not based on canon of whatever it might be a picture of, and not based on an understanding of different artistic styles. There will be no definition of "promotion" of the three super-icky topics, which have to get their own special mention away from content that encourages other crimes.
Definitely, the phrase "graphic and explicit in nature" will not be defined. They gave an example (image with nudity, sexuality, or violence... how much, not mentioned); we should all understand exactly what they mean by that.
In short: the new policy is, "if it squicks us, it's not allowed. What we think is hateful squicks us. Pictures that we think eroticise children squick us. Erotic text, at this point, does not squick us. Except maybe we think kids shouldn't be able to see it, even if it's legal for them."
So much for "we support freedom of speech," which they've often stated in the past. If it doesn't include speech you find morally reprehensible, it's a useless statement. Saying "LiveJournal has chosen not to host it due to its highly controversial nature" shows that LJ doesn't care about free speech; it cares about advertising dollars, which are not gained by controversial content. (And next year, what "controversial" topics will LJ "choose not to host?")
I expect to be posting much more at IJ, and also to be crossposting most public posts (which I don't expect to do many of) with LJ comments turned off. I've given up on LJ; I just have to sort out whether I dislike and distrust them enough to lose touch with the people I value at LJ. (C'mon, F'list, make IJ accounts so I can friend you there and set up my filters properly.)
The IJ Clone of this post at http://elfwreck.insanejournal.com/162233.html allows comments.
My thoughts:
Not gonna bother. I did my arguing last round (Last several rounds?) I asked lots of questions about definitions. They were ignored. I've still got two open support requests, being ignored for a couple of months now.
From the initial staff comments in the "discussion," it's obvious that there will be no definition of "sexually explicit"--it'll be assumed that "you know it when you see it." Or at least, "we know it when we see it." There will be no definition of "minor" in relation to art--staff will decide if art depicts a minor based on their own biases, not based on canon of whatever it might be a picture of, and not based on an understanding of different artistic styles. There will be no definition of "promotion" of the three super-icky topics, which have to get their own special mention away from content that encourages other crimes.
Definitely, the phrase "graphic and explicit in nature" will not be defined. They gave an example (image with nudity, sexuality, or violence... how much, not mentioned); we should all understand exactly what they mean by that.
In short: the new policy is, "if it squicks us, it's not allowed. What we think is hateful squicks us. Pictures that we think eroticise children squick us. Erotic text, at this point, does not squick us. Except maybe we think kids shouldn't be able to see it, even if it's legal for them."
So much for "we support freedom of speech," which they've often stated in the past. If it doesn't include speech you find morally reprehensible, it's a useless statement. Saying "LiveJournal has chosen not to host it due to its highly controversial nature" shows that LJ doesn't care about free speech; it cares about advertising dollars, which are not gained by controversial content. (And next year, what "controversial" topics will LJ "choose not to host?")
I expect to be posting much more at IJ, and also to be crossposting most public posts (which I don't expect to do many of) with LJ comments turned off. I've given up on LJ; I just have to sort out whether I dislike and distrust them enough to lose touch with the people I value at LJ. (C'mon, F'list, make IJ accounts so I can friend you there and set up my filters properly.)
The IJ Clone of this post at http://elfwreck.insanejournal.com/162233.html allows comments.