jackofallgeeks | SixApart, Censorship, and the mandates of Advertisers

Current Mood: angry

SixApart, Censorship, and the mandates of Advertisers

So apparently there's a wave of journal purges going through LiveJournal currently, something about "inappropriate interests," with journals that list rape, incest, pedophilia, etc. in their interests are getting the axe. On the surface this doesn't *seem* like a problem. To be honest it bugs me a little on the basis of free speech arguments -- "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it," and all that -- but there's a certain sort of reasonableness to it. Until you find that communities centered on the appreciation a Nabokov have been shut down for listing 'lolita' as an interest, and incest-survivor communities are victims of similar. That bugs me even more, because these are positive groups that at best deal with controversial subject matter, or at worst are wholly unaffiliated with whatever's meant to be purged (as I would argue the Nabokov sites are).

What's more irritating to me, though, is that a friend of mine has noted that there's reason to believe that advertisers might be pressuring SixApart (and thus LiveJournal) to 'take action.' *THAT* has me bordering on rage. I have a permanent account here, but I will leave LiveJournal without a second glance if this is the direction it's going. Being overly-scrupulous is about as low on my list as being willfully ignorant, and I will not stand for whatever backwards, well-meaning, financially-motivated philosophy would silence journals based on such flimsy criteria. Shut down the bastions of filth and corruption, sure, but first prove to me that it's a bastion of filth and corruption. And I've pretty stringent criteria.

What has me irritated is the possibility, brought to my attention by a friend's casual remarks, that Six Apart (and thus LiveJournal) could suffer adverse effects due to their new-found advertiser sponsorship. Said friend merely noted that there are rumors that this could be the stick or carrot that drives the recent purges, and that at least one group (Warriors for Innocence or something) have sent SixApart letters calling for a purge. Granted, WFI only wants journals with specifically pornographic content pulled down, and this I can generally agree with; it was LJ's own negligence which has inadvertently cut down Nabokov and others. Let me stress: I'm fully aware that LJ isn't intentionally trying to silence fans of Russian literature and/or support groups for victims of abuse. It was negligent, and that negligence is what has me angry.

Further investigation seems to indicate that, so far, a lot of this stuff is unconfirmed hearsay. Plausible, but unconfirmed. There ARE confirmed reports about Harry Potter slash and RP communities getting shut down for violating TOS; something about fictional or not they were 'condoning criminal behavior,' which is against the TOS. That has me a little bit irritated for being censorship, but TOS is TOS, so at least there's some backing. Kind of unreasonable, perhaps, but there it is.

This sums up my concern and irritation in a way I couldn't formulate myself: "What bothers me is the evidence that sponsors may have been used successfully to pressure LJ -- even after all the reassurance we got that a I have a permanent account here, but I will leave LiveJournal without a second glance if this is the direction it's going.dvertising would never affect LJ's treatment of its users one bit." (

circuit_four) I have a permanent account here, but I will leave LiveJournal without a second glance if this is the direction it's going.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Hey, hon. If you're talking about my entry, I should specify that there was NO evidence of any advertisers pressuring LJ. My exact words were "the apparent role of advertising in pressuring them to take action." Specifically, an anti-pedophilia activist group was pressuring LJ to take action against these journals and communities, under threats to tell LJ's advertisers that LJ was tolerating these questionably legal journals.

(I don't have the exact wording handy -- a peek thru the posts on the subject making the rounds will find you this group's letter to LJ pretty quickly. If it doesn't turn up, ask me later and I'll hunt around for details.)

This misunderstanding was entirely my fault, I think -- the wording is ambiguous and I'll go clarify it right away! Once again, AFAIK, no actual advertisers were contacted -- and also, just AFAIK, the group ("Warriors for Innocence" or some such) only wanted journals with actual child porn deleted. As far as I can tell from early reports, yeah, it was LJ's decision to start deleting folks on the basis of a single-word entry in interests lists. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they reverse a large number of those overzealous bans -- fiction journals, Nabovok fans, incest survivors -- or they turn out to be unfounded rumors altogether. I'll keep folks posted.

The other frustrating thing is that with the journals deleted, there's really nothing left to evaluate. :/ FWIW, I haven't been able to actually confirm the allegations of incest survivor journals being banned -- a couple of the "news aggregator" posts have made the assertion, but they may just be passing it back and forth. The Nabokov community, OTOH, I can find you a specific journal name, but there was only one I know of so far, and its subject matter is still only hearsay.

OTOH, the purgation of wholly fictional journals based entirely on the listing of "interests advocating criminal behavior" or something of the kind is confirmed. There was at least one Severus Snape RP journal that listed a bunch of nasty stuff that got nailed despite a clear disclaimer that all its activities were fictional. I've also seen one post so far of a reply from LJAbuse that was pretty unrepentant about saying, essentially, "yeah, we know it's fictional, but it's still against the TOS 'cause it still advocated criminal behavior; sorry to ruin your creative expression, but we just don't care."

Again, further details about any of this available as soon as I shouldn't be running off to work. :)

Fixed. Didn't intend to misrepresent you (and looking over what I said and ho3w I said it, I kinda did), and I may have been a bit overzealous/unclear myself. The whole 'overly scrupulous' thing... strikes a nerve, you could say.

The step from "advertisers could be used against you" to "advertisers can pressure you to do as they say" was entirely my own.

No guilt! :) That's the thing, people rarely intends to propagate a rumor -- for the most part, they grow by perfectly reasonable miscommunications by perfectly reasonable people.

Well, yes, though I note that I intended to take the noted step, despite the fact that it's not what you said. That is, understanding that you only meant "this could be leveraged by a third party," I took it a step further and said, "lo and behold, LJ is under the thumb of sponsors!" Though, probably with less drama.

this isn't new - it's an old old fight between LJ and law enforcement/child protection groups. Perverted Justice has had LJ blacklisted for months (maybe years). too many "young" 13-18 year olds use lj for them NOT to be doing something. you can talk about your Lolita fantasy or whatever other things these sickos talk about as long as it's friend's locked. It's only responsible to be AS responsible as freakin myspace.

Not listing that you want to fuck your family or little girls in your interests should not be that great of an imposition. LJ has had it's fair share of "short eyes" who have been not only charged with sexual abuse of a child but SENTENCED sexual offenders

I should note that after I discovered that LJ was on PJ's blacklist I sent them a letter stating my disappointment.

They don't go into private or friends only entries - just public.

I would like to note that listing 'rape,' 'incest,' or especially 'lolita' is significantly different from saying, 'I would like to commit and/or condone rape, incest, and/or other vulgar, heinous acts.' Rape crisis groups and incest survivor groups would be right and well-founded to list rape and incest as 'interests.' A social worker who's particularly interested in the preponderance of incest in society might also be justified. A psychologist who studies the effects of rape on the victim and perpetrator might also list the interest. There's nothing inherently wrong about saying, "I am interested in ____." To say or imply otherwise...!!

And I'm saying it's not a huge imposition to NOT to list that to the list of interests. no lolita doesn't belong in the same catagory but you put the two together. Have they actually flagged rape crisis groups? Do you have that info or were you just supposing?

Again I think LJ has the responsibility to at least do this. It's fine to talk about a lot of stuff on an intellectual level but too many young people use and visit the site not for them to do SOMETHING. They went from a nearly (again public entries could be flagged as inappropriate and people could be listed as spammer) no oversight to MINIMAL.

I'm sorry you feel that it's just too much of an imposition.

I'm sorry you feel that it's just too much of an imposition.
-nods- I do. And I've never felt "think of the children" was a very convincing argument. I agree that something should be done about *actual* pornographic and exploitative sites, but it shouldn't be something that imposes on valid use and discussion of thoughts and realities. A zero tolerance attitude will only inconvenience legitimate users; the ones who don't want to be found out with ply their trade in other ways.

I think it's inappropriate to 'protect' kids by keeping them ignorant.

As for the banning of crisis groups and the like, no, they are as yet unconfirmed (to my knowledge). I haven't heard one way or the other on the rumors, and haven't cared enough to check up on it myself.

But you cared enough make this super angry post?

Having children, your own flesh and blood, in the world makes a difference. It stops being hypothetical. And you can't watch your kids 100% of the time. So websites have a responsibility. I stick to my guns on this and think you are wrong on this

I stick to my guns on this and think you are wrong on this

Fair enough. I would ask nothing less. I agree that sites have a responsibility to help keep the net clean, but I think it's wrong for them to do so to the detriment of legitimate users. Find a better way, is all I'm saying. But it's obviously not productive for us to be fighting about it.

Someone (http://mmeubiquitous.livejournal.com/216083.html#comments) who cares more than I found an article Here (http://www.perverted-justice.com/) (Perverted-Justice.com) and Here (http://news.com.com/Mass+deletion+sparks+LiveJournal+revolt/2100-1025_3-6187619.html?tag=st.prev) (News.com) about the LJ purge, both condemning the broad, sweeping deletions that LJ made. A spanish-language Nabokov community is listed, as well as fanfiction communities, and a lady author who deals with the darker side of human nature weighs in on her displeasure at being lumped in with pedophiles and rapists. A comment thread from actual LJ users who have been effected (or just have something to say, I guess) is Here (http://news.livejournal.com/98960.html?nc=1270&page=100#comments). And apparently nothing at all on the LJ news page.

there is a difference between what you said in your post and what is actually happening. I agree what is happening IS not right but what described in your post (i feel) was different. Facts make all the diffence.

Not sure what you think was different in my post (maybe I appeared upset that *anything* was happening?), but I'm glad you appreciate the facts which I neglected to verify on my own (a crime, I know, but I can only do so much in a day).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

SixApart, Censorship, and the mandates of Advertisers

rumor control

Re: rumor control

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Thought != Crime

Re: Thought != Crime

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject