I agree with you on the customer-service angle, definitely.
I do think, though, that there's been an odd sense of, "Oh, well, it's all right then," since the Memorial Day/Strikethrough events. So in some ways, people relaxed too much -- I know I initially locked some particular posts, then unlocked them. I think what I'll do now is put that possibly-at-issue material on my website, and link to it on LJ only, but not post it here.
Anyway. I guess also the whole "if it's art, we won't touch it," and the various test cases that seemed to go through that litmus all right, gave people more false reassurance to unlock/not to lock.
I don't think that was *wise*, by any accounts. But I can understand how people who have been here, in some cases for years and years without issue, thought that they would be all right in keeping their graphics/art unprotected.
I did think at least one of the works in question *was* locked, though -- so partly it's not safe no matter how we treat things here. Better to link to an offsite location, I guess.
no subject
I do think, though, that there's been an odd sense of, "Oh, well, it's all right then," since the Memorial Day/Strikethrough events. So in some ways, people relaxed too much -- I know I initially locked some particular posts, then unlocked them. I think what I'll do now is put that possibly-at-issue material on my website, and link to it on LJ only, but not post it here.
Anyway. I guess also the whole "if it's art, we won't touch it," and the various test cases that seemed to go through that litmus all right, gave people more false reassurance to unlock/not to lock.
I don't think that was *wise*, by any accounts. But I can understand how people who have been here, in some cases for years and years without issue, thought that they would be all right in keeping their graphics/art unprotected.
I did think at least one of the works in question *was* locked, though -- so partly it's not safe no matter how we treat things here. Better to link to an offsite location, I guess.