yeah, their "clarifications" basically seem to be an exercise in "whoops, we didn't think of that one." and as my boyfriend (who thinks fandom is weird, slash is weirder, and harry potter slash is bizarre - and yet whose reaction when i explained that someone got banned from livejournal for a drawing of a fictional supposedly underaged character was "that's ridiculous!") pointed out, most sites actively hosting such content are not being shut down.

the clarifications are also incredibly frustrating in their inconsistency. you have to have a reason for these policies. if it's "we can't host the material," fine. but then linking can't be a problem. if it's "we can't encourage the behavior represented in the material," ok, but then we're going to have to sort out what constitutes encouragement. it's like they're just plucking reasons out of thin air. but i'm sure i'm preaching to the choir here.

interestingly, when i mentioned this casually it turned out that the boyfriend had already seen the news coverage, which maybe says something useful. on the other hand, he didn't really know what the issues were. but he's naturally a little spacey, so that may not be meaningful :).

(if you're interested, i've made a couple of posts on my journal recently on the subject of obscenity that sort of relate to my reply to [Bad username or site: nidoking / @ livejournal.com], although i feel kind of absurd pimping myself :))