Yes, I'm well aware of the whole to-do, and I've been following it. Yes, I disagree with the better part of what they're doing and the way they're handling it or failing to. Yes, I think some big mistakes have been made on all sides, but LJ/6A's have been much bigger and more noticeable. No, I don't think it's a good idea to go as far as they are with the anti-kiddie-porn measures. All I ever meant to do was to point out that the "contradiction" referred to in the original post, of policing links to objectionable content violating their abuse policies on non-LJ hosted content, was not actually a contradiction at all. No, I don't think policing those links is necessary, nor will it endear them to their customer base. But arguing that it's a contradiction is invalid. Argue that the content can be found just as easily without the link, or that the link may not be "advocating" the content (as in a "look at how sick this stuff is, I hate it!" context), and you've got my full support.
no subject
Yes, I'm well aware of the whole to-do, and I've been following it. Yes, I disagree with the better part of what they're doing and the way they're handling it or failing to. Yes, I think some big mistakes have been made on all sides, but LJ/6A's have been much bigger and more noticeable. No, I don't think it's a good idea to go as far as they are with the anti-kiddie-porn measures. All I ever meant to do was to point out that the "contradiction" referred to in the original post, of policing links to objectionable content violating their abuse policies on non-LJ hosted content, was not actually a contradiction at all. No, I don't think policing those links is necessary, nor will it endear them to their customer base. But arguing that it's a contradiction is invalid. Argue that the content can be found just as easily without the link, or that the link may not be "advocating" the content (as in a "look at how sick this stuff is, I hate it!" context), and you've got my full support.
Am I well-explained, honeycakeybabydollpieface?