Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Okay, now I'm just PISSED . . .

The mass deletions on LiveJournal haven't really affected me, 'cos I'm not here for the porn, but I've been following the fandom_wank report and ended up reading pages upon pages of angry comments on the latest LJ News post.

That's where I first came across this.

Yes, folks, LJ has yet to actually release a statement to its own users, but is willing to talk to the press and airily dismiss the deleted journals as things that "we felt there was not a reason" to have around.

I'll be kind. I understand they're under a lot of pressure. But if they continue on this course for our Brave New LiveJournal, where content can be dictated by right-wing nutjobs, I will seriously be reconsidering my paid account.

I can live on three icons. I did for ages.


May. 31st, 2007 01:30 am (UTC)
Re: I dunno...to me its close...
Oh, I have absolutely NO objection to actual pedophile sites being taken down. I mean, NONE. If they'd done that, and only that, I would have fucking cheered.

But the fallout seems to be that a lot of the sites were, in fact, fandom and fanfic sites. There was even a community taken down that was devoted to a Spanish-language discussion of the novel Lolita. One girl had her journal suspended because she listed "incest" as an interest. She was an incest SURVIVOR.

This elephant-gun-to-take-out-a-cockroach approach is what bothers me, along with the implication that the fanfic sites are likewise unwelcome under these magically transformed standards that nobody told us about.
May. 31st, 2007 03:27 am (UTC)
Well that girl's deletion was stupid...

Well it's only a matter of time before everything is taken under the wing of Big Brother. Look at myspace - and now they've bought photobucket today. Who's to say when Live Journal will join the conglomeration.

Jun. 2nd, 2007 02:29 am (UTC)
Re: Well that girl's deletion was stupid...
One of the worst aspects of the whole mess is that they let some neoCon Christian wingnut group dictate to them what their policies should be.

The only group that should make LJ's policies? LJ.

That is not to say that they shouldn't take advice to heart, or investigate potential TOS violations. Discussing pedophilia and child abuse are against the TOS, and thus LJ is within its rights to smush them like roaches.

I'd just have a lot more respect for them if they came to the decision on their own rather than kowtowing to pressure from outside groups, especially those with a religious and/or political agenda. What makes it worse is that LJ is not exclusively for Americans, and thus applying American political hot button issues or even certain religious guidelines to LJ is a slippery slope.

I don't have any plans to cry over the pedo blogs and comms being zorched. But it's possible that it is just the beginning. I can think of a number of blogs and comms that practice what might be labeled, at the least, as being welcoming to broadcasting unpopular thoughts and ideas. It doesn't have to involve morality, even; there are a number of comms that promote file-sharing. There are comms that talk about legalizing pot, and comms that talk about legalizing gay marriage. There are comms where people post secrets and confessions, some of which describe illegal / immoral acts and behaviors.

They are making amends by restoring the fan blogs and comms, that's swell.

I just hope they define and stick to their own set of guidelines, and stop letting groups with an agenda dictate to them what they should do.
Jun. 2nd, 2007 02:19 am (UTC)
Re: I dunno...to me its close...
You know me. I have NO love for pedophiles. I think they are scum.

On the other hand, pedophilia is an urge, whereas actual child molestation is an act. As I said in my LJ, I can talk all I want about wanting to strangle someone, but that does not mean I will ever act on it. It doesn't mean I will cross the line and act on that urge. It doesn't make me a murderer. It doesn't even make me a homicidal maniac. It means I said something inflammatory. At worst, I can get popped for making terroristic threats.

Talking about urges is unpopular speech, covered by the First Amendment. Actually acting on said urges is not protected, and may they be smote mightily if and when they cross the line.

I'd rather have the skeevos easy to find, where they can be monitored, rather than chasing them underground more than they already are.