John Noble (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jackofallgeeks) wrote2007-05-30 12:47 pm
jackofallgeeks) wrote2007-05-30 12:47 pm
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." (![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.
Thought != Crime
Re: Thought != Crime
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.
no subject
-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.
no subject
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
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
no subject