Darkside Rainbow

LiveJournal has finally broken its public silence, a day after a response was promised to its users. So far, it hasn’t been particularly well-received by readers.

In the post, LiveJournal staff address certain questions specifically, but leave others unanswered despite telling users that they are “misinformed” without explaining how - while at the same time asking users to elucidate how they can improve their services. The staff also address the behavior of the staff member previously found mocking users in a community meant for ironic satire as, and I quote, “bad judgment”.

Although LiveJournal takes large steps in clarifying its stance, most users appear of the mindset “too little, too late”; the delayed response time of Six Apart/Livejournal has done little to help its image among its customer base, or the perception of the company’s ideals of customer service. The deluge of comments to the post in LiveJournal’s lj_biz community has already begun, and is expected to continue until users are satisfied with their understanding of LiveJournal’s Terms of Service. The natives are beyond restless: the natives are angry, and demanding recognition.

In the meantime, a new angle has unfolded, adding another dimension to the story: while users were permanently suspended for homoerotic imagery of fictional characters that LiveJournal deemed potentially harmful to minors and lacking in artistic merit, communities that encourage anorexia and offer advice on perpetuating the disorder are not susceptible to deletion despite user-noted violations of the Terms of Service. Users are demanding explanations for the seemingly uneven application of the strictures of the ToS.

LiveJournal has also not addressed how they defined ‘artistic merit’ in the case of ponderosa121. What they have, however, made clear is their stance on ‘illegal and harmful content’:

I. Content which violates LiveJournal’s policy against illegal and harmful content is:

a. Content that intrinsically violates existing United States or California law; in other words, where merely possessing, displaying or transmitting the content is a crime. This includes child pornography and threats against the President and successors to the Presidency.

b. Content that encourages or advocates hate crimes, the abuse of children in any form, or rape, even if the content itself is not illegal and may be protected by the First Amendment. This portion of the policy reflects the especially reprehensible nature of these activities; users who encourage or advocate these acts, regardless of their motivation, are simply not welcome on LiveJournal.

c. Content that solicits the commission of, seeks customers for, or provides instructions for illegal activities that would cause immediate and lasting physical or economic harm to others.

They then move on to explain how they apply this to content of a fictional nature:

* How do these policies apply to images of minors who are not real?

To ensure that we are compliant with child pornography laws, we have decided to treat any content which contains a graphic visual depiction of a minor (anyone under the age of 18, as defined by Federal and California state law) engaged in sexually explicit conduct as a violation of our policy regarding illegal content (see this link for definitions of graphic, visual depiction, and sexually explicit conduct). We feel this approach creates the clearest guidelines possible for users to follow and for the Abuse Prevention Team to enforce, and minimizes the risk of an incorrect evaluation of material. In short, we want to eliminate child porn from being hosted on LiveJournal.

That still leaves room for ambiguity in ponderosa121’s case, where the specific piece that caused her suspension left the age of the youngest character in question due to the style - not to mention LiveJournal’s own statement in response to the previously mentioned support ticket that it was deemed obscene not because of the ages, but because it lacked in artistic merit.

What the post does make abundantly clear, however, is one thing: anyone who violates these terms, for any reason and at any time, “regardless of their motivation, are simply not welcome on LiveJournal.” Fair or unfair, right or wrong, that’s the way it is. Make of it what you will.

Will LiveJournal’s community members be satisfied with the response? That remains to be seen.

Update 12:35 a.m. CST 08-08-07: They sure as hell aren’t satisfied with this line of commentary. I feel an Inigo Montoya moment coming on here. “I do not think it means what you think it means.”

livejournal, blogging, six apart, censorship, strikethrough 07, boldthrough 07, fanart, fanfiction, fandom