Oh, for Heaven's Sake...

[liz_marcs]

Dear 6A/LJ,

When I said I wanted clarification of your policies, this was not what I meant.

I meant clarification, not "the ToS hasn't really changed" followed by a bunch of vague statements that still doesn't actually say anything and still doesn't clarify what is and is not acceptable on LJ.

In case you're wondering, the issue is all about how you are interpreting the ToS. Since we can't read minds, we need you to tell us point blank. Which you're not.

And no, we're not whining. This is what happens when your user base has stopped trusting you. We're looking for loopholes where you could conceivably screw us over. This is about protecting ourselves, which obviously clashes with your need to protect your interests.

Really, the comments to the post say it better than I can at this point.

Look, answers in blunt English would be good here. Even if they're answers I don't like, something more than these vague statements and transparency that's about as transparent as mud is not an answer.

*throws up hands*

So much for that clarification...

Comments

[blade-girl.livejournal.com]

Okay, seriously - THAT'S what they've taken all this time to put together? Considering how long they've been at it, I really expected a set of byzantine alterations to the ToS, or at least some new restrictions or definitions of what is not "acceptable content." Not that I was looking forward to it, but at least in that case, the delay in offering "clarification" would have made sense.

Not only are these people stupid, they assume that we are all stupid.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

They're also running up against the joy that is the International community, too. For example, why the hell should someone from Amsterdam give a crap about the laws in Las Angeles?

Then there was the good example of the same-sex marriage issue. Legal in several countries and in one state, not legal in 23 states. Saying, "Oh. Yeah. Advocating for that illegal thing is okay, but child porn (which they do not clearly define since it appears to be a "I know it if I see it" standard — which the U.S. Supreme Court has proven is no standard at all) is not okay."

On what is that decision based?

And also, happens when corporate policy changes and now advocating for same-sex marriage is a bannable offense. Unlikely, but could happen. You (the journal owner) decides to comply and no long write posts advocating fr same-sex marriage. Can LJ go back 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, or even 10 years to hold something you wrote before advocating for same-sex marriage became a bannable offense against you?

While I understand the heard-and-fast rules are impossible in this situation because people and the Internet are constantly evolving, people need (at the very least) some kind of clearly worded guidelines to make sense of this and they're not.

Instead it's throwing more vaguely worded crap in our direction followed by, "Can we get your money now, plz?"

[alicettlg.livejournal.com]

On what is that decision based?

It's based on our disinterest in their bribe of charitable donations if we'd just please, pretty please, desperately please by their damn permanent accounts so they can have our money NOW and then TOS us whenever they like.

Barak's post smacked of both desperation as he watched dollars flying out the door (I'd bet fandom is a large buyer of permanent accounts) and whine (why do these brats keep bothering me????). The poor LJ guy who posted before him sounded like he genuinely wanted to reassure people but he and everyone else at LJ keep getting sandbagged by Barak.

[hendrikboom.livejournal.com]

For example, why the hell should someone from Amsterdam give a crap about the laws in Las Angeles?

Because that's where their texts are being served from? Now if LiveJournal were a collection of independent interconnected servers in many countries, (like Usenet or email) this might not he an issue.

-- hendrik

[alicettlg.livejournal.com]

My favorite is that there's at least one direct contradiction between what Barak posted and what the LJ guy posted before him, Barak says that Profiles will be looked at as a whole while the LJ guy says that it's Profiles *and* Journals together as a whole. So apparently they haven't resolved their miscommunication issues either. :(

And I swear I saw some LJ person, possibly Barak, post that "interests" did mean "like" and that it has always been that way and now he's saying the exact opposite - so if that's true, then that would be a change and yet he says there are no changes. *headdesk* (I'll try to find that interests = like thing tonight.)

Every time Barak opens his mouth, I cringe. If the man would simply shut up and never speak about or to LJ ever again and would let LJ staff talk instead, I would be much more reassured.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

It's become increasingly clear that Barak not only has zero clue about the LJ user base, he also has no clue about social networking sites or blogs (LJ is kind of a hybrid between the two). He also has no clue who uses them or even why.

I...really don't get it. You'd think he'd know something about it, especially since 6A is a company that actually owns blogging platforms.

[alicettlg.livejournal.com]

Yeah but Ben and Mena Trott who started and continue to run 6A (she's president, iirc and Ben works in development I think) also have zero clue about their MT user base - they NEVER have. They hired Barak, they like Barak, he is just like them, absolutely clueless. If you read Mena's personal blog or maybe it was in Mena's corner at 6A (or both, I remember something about their trip to Japan to open MT something there), there's entries by her talking about hiring Barak, this was back around 2004 or 2005 iirc, around when they moved MT to pay licenses and I was more involved there with beta testing for v3.* so I followed her posts for a while.

6A has not changed, this is how they've been all along, it's just that now they're meddling in LJ instead of letting the LJ staff who DO understand the culture be in charge. They bought a good investment but they're quickly trashing it by sticking their fingers in it.

[alicettlg.livejournal.com]

Here it is:

Barak says here:
http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html
Both in the instructions for profiles and in other places on the site we make it clear that interests listed should be evaluated within the context of “I like x”, “I’m in favor of x” or “I support x”.

And Burr86 says:
http://community.livejournal.com/lj_biz/240884.html
To be clear: listing an illegal activity in your interests list isn't a violation of the Terms of Service in isolation, and we won't equate individual interests with activities you support or advocate.

These two statements directly contradict each other. I've posted a comment on Burr86's LJ Biz post asking for an answer, which is it?

[tinylegacies.livejournal.com]

I think that was a misunderstanding on Barak's part, to be honest. Burr86 has been around for a long time and he seemed to indicate that interests = like was never actually the case.

[rileysaplank.livejournal.com]

What I don't get is that I have to take into account US laws even though I'm in the UK. I know ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law, but I don't usually have to take into account laws for a country that is thousands of miles away from where I live. And does that mean if one of the people in my f/list in the UK is pondering how to celebrate their 18th/19th/20th birthday and I encourage them to go to the pub and have a drink to celebrate their birthday then my account is going to be suspended because I'm encouraging an act that is illegal in the US but perfectly legal in the UK? What about if I had a relationship with a 16 year old and posted about it in my journal? It's perfectly legal in the UK (though a 30 something dating a 16 year old would be frowned upon) but under US laws I'd be discussing peadophilia.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

Oh, it gets worse that that. In some of the Bible belt states, you can date and marry someone as young as 14 and not get into trouble. In Massachusetts, anyone under 18 will get you in hot water.

That's right: conservative states tend to have younger age-of-consent laws that a big ol' liberal state like Massachusetts.

And don't laugh. I know a guy that almost ended up in jail when he got his girlfriend pregnant. He was three months older than she was, except that he was 18 when he got her pregnant and she was 17. Hand-to-God this is true.

[nidoking.livejournal.com]

The Internet has created an unprecedented way for people to use resources in foreign countries while remaining in their home country. In the U.S., it's illegal to possess material that's considered child pornography. This means that by Six Apart hosting Livejournal, any child pornography on their servers is illegal, regardless of who put it there and where that person lives. If someone wants to set up a livejournal.uk server in another country and host certain accounts there, arrangements might be made for people to host material in the country of their choice and abide by its laws instead. As for encouraging a friend to drink, I don't think you'd be suspended for that - first off, someone would have to report you for it, and they'd still have to evaluate it in context because I'm pretty sure that just typing about drinking isn't illegal here. It's GIVING or SELLING alcohol to a minor that's against the law, and you're certainly not doing either. (Advertising targeting minors is also illegal, but I don't think LJ entries count.) Since it's not illegal for you, the person you're talking to (being a U.K. citizen), or Six Apart, I don't imagine they'd have a problem with it. And we're fighting for cases of that nature to earn warnings anyway, as long as it's not blatantly illegal, so the person has a chance to remove the material rather than be banned outright.

[tinylegacies.livejournal.com]

Because there has to be a legal standard invoked somewhere and, in the case of the internet, that's where the servers hosting the information are located.

There can't be different laws for every user based on where they live.

[nidoking.livejournal.com]

On the plus side, the sale hasn't started yet... maybe they've heard our concerns and have wisely decided to hold off on the sale until they've finished placating the masses.

Of course, my theory remains that they don't WANT to sell permanent accounts, and that they've carefully decided to time the sale when as few people as possible want to buy them. Then they return to ensuring customer satisfaction so people will keep subscribing and seeing ads, while all the time being able to say "Hey, we OFFERED you the chance to buy a permanent account, and you didn't want one!"

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

I'm of two minds on this one. I don't think it's far-fetched at all (in fact, I'll be shocked if there's another permanent account sale...ever which is why I was tempted in the first place).

On the other hand, as long as I got money in my pocket instead of theirs, I'm hoping that I have at least a little hold over them.

In either case, they've permanently lost $15 a month from me (extra user pics and scrap book) for sure. As to whether they'll lose my remaining $20 depends on awful lot on whether 6A/LJ continues to trash the place.

[alicettlg.livejournal.com]

The sale started, they announced it this afternoon. The fact that they announced the sale in the same post saying that they were still clarifying stuff and reviewing stuff simply demonstrates their cluelessness ever further.

[justhuman.livejournal.com]

I hope you added this to a comment on the post. I responded in much the same way last night. I pointed out that I approve of them not hosting a journal that links live vid feed of child molestation - which is what I think they're trying to say. However, I want to know what kind what the hell is objectionable so I can figure out if my community, fandom, is actually welcome here or will slowly be TOS'd out.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

From what I gather, 6A will not act if no one complains about it. However, if they do have a complaint, they have to investigate and make a determination if the journal should bee ToS'd.

That's a legal thing. If 6A proactively goes after journals, they cross the line into becoming a publisher. That means they are now responsible for the content on every single one of those 13 million accounts they have on their servers. This opens them up to all kinds of legal jeopardy.

If they wait until the complaints come to them, they are just a service provider and aren't responsible for content. Instead, they're offering services to 13 million independent publishers.

That said, I agree. They need to spell out where the line is, not just to protect the users and to provide guidance to their own personnel, but also to weed out frivolous complaints from Internet cranks.

[mara-sho.livejournal.com]

I work with intellectual property issues online in my job, and although I'm not a lawyer (nor do I understand legalese at all) I frequently run across this simple phrase: "subject to the laws of [insert State/Province/Locale here] in the country of [insert relevant country here]." That means that although I'm in Scotland accessing content online, I'm bound by the laws (in the case of my job with electronic databases and journals it tends to be copyright legislation) of whichever country the supplier specifies.

As far as I can tell, neither LJ nor SA has an equivalent of that phrase in their ToS. Something as simple as that would help clarify the issue a little more.

But yes - as rileysaplank mentioned as well - age of consent is 16 in the UK, I believe there are countries where it is 14. A native of those countries talking about a sexual relationship with someone of that age would be committing an illegal act in the terms of US legislation, so where does one draw the line?

Sine SA seems to be trying to market LJ as a marketable commodity on the stock exchange, one would think they would have teams of lawyers and spin doctors analysing every single thing in their ToS to ensure that there are no loopholes or possible avenues of misunderstanding.

[abbylee]

Maybe something like this?

You and LiveJournal agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within the county of San Francisco, California, U.S.A.

http://www.livejournal.com/legal/tos.bml

[blade-girl.livejournal.com]

Everybody can relax! The moment we've all been waiting for has finally come:

LJ has given paid members the ability to be notified when someone defriends you.

Thank God. This will come in so handy, being made aware when someone I probably didn't even realize was on my flist decides to reject me, so I can properly get in his/her face and demand to know why I'm suddenly not good enough for them anymore...

Hmm... I seem to have become distracted. Wasn't I upset about something before?

[wesleysgirl.livejournal.com]

*Snerk* :-)

[nidoking.livejournal.com]

Pfft... I've just gotten in the habit of refreshing my friends list in Semagic regularly now that people defriend me more often. It's easy, it also catches when someone adds me, it has a full list of friends with pastable links, and it's FREE! But now I feel the unlove all the time, instead of just once a month when I get bored and decide to check it.

[bubble-blunder.livejournal.com]

I replied in the biz post, and will probably make another detailed post/open letter type of thing in my own journal later tonight when I have more time, but the one question that I haven't really seen anyone else asking and which certainly hasn't been answered is what LJ/6A's stance is on the legality of fanfic and fanart. Even fandom can't seem to agree about whether or not it is fair use or a violation of copyright law, and since there really isn't any case law to fall back on to prove one side or the other right, shouldn't it be something that LJ takes a stance on in terms of TOS? We already know that WFI and other idiots like them are not above going and complaining about anything and everything. What will LJ/6A's position be when WFI starts filing complaints that we are all in violation of the TOS for writing/creating/supporting/advocating for fanfic or fanart, which is an illegal activity (not that I consider it illegal, but we all know that there are those who do)? Will they back us or ban us all? We need to know this.

~Lisa

[missmurchison.livejournal.com]

Thank you for continuing to point out that we are not whiners, we are dissatisfied customers. Companies that know what they're doing spend time analyzing complaints to improve service, not retconning disasters and issuing unclear policy statements. Why would I give money to an incompetent organization?