![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
A bit of confusion
I'm not sure if I wound up coming to this conclusion due to the part about membership in adult-oriented communities, or if I've read something on the matter somewhere else. I honestly cannot remember.
http://www.insanejournal.com/support/fa
Is it, or is it not, more or less mandatory on IJ to flock explicit material? If it's not, I want to be able to correct my errors on the matter, because I've advised a few people that it is. I'm sure I remembered reading something on that, but it's not in that faq where I thought it was, so now I'm wondering if I'm just going crazy.
I'd ask in Support or somewhere like that, and I will if no one's certain at the moment, but with the new server move and the OpenID errors, it's really something that can wait until things settle down. In the meantime I figured I'd ask in here, since the boundary lines are a part of why we all came here from LJ.
http://www.insanejournal.com/support/fa
Is it, or is it not, more or less mandatory on IJ to flock explicit material? If it's not, I want to be able to correct my errors on the matter, because I've advised a few people that it is. I'm sure I remembered reading something on that, but it's not in that faq where I thought it was, so now I'm wondering if I'm just going crazy.
I'd ask in Support or somewhere like that, and I will if no one's certain at the moment, but with the new server move and the OpenID errors, it's really something that can wait until things settle down. In the meantime I figured I'd ask in here, since the boundary lines are a part of why we all came here from LJ.
more or less mandatory on IJ to flock
most blue laws in many places are ignored until someone raises a stink then those at risk tend to over react, when a half whit does so, then shit flies everywhere (lj demonstrates this perfectly) the bottom line is you are responsible for what you present, and the chain of responsibility includes anyone who enables said presentation, so any freedom you have to flaunt conventional standards (because almost everything can become a question of legality in the proper hands) depends on how blatant you are about it, you aren't going to get a definitive answer until someones neck is on the line, but if you wouldn't wear it on a tee into your local daycare , then a f-lock seems appropriate,.. less government is the best government, but for that to work the community at large needs to be intelligent and proactive in their own actions,..
Re: more or less mandatory on IJ to flock
According to the reply and quote, above, it would surely look as if it falls on the "less mandatory" side of things - I rarely, if ever, see a "mandate" conditioned on "asks."
Maybe, at some point, IJ, itself, will replace the word "ask" with "demand," I don't know. If they do, they'll also have to at least qualify what constitutes "frequently," and perhaps even, "adult nature."
As to the rest, I disagree. The Internet is not a local daycare, nor should it ever become one, and flocking is self-censorship. Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that LJ, IJ, GJ, any business, can do as it likes with its TOS and its servers. However, adults are responsible for their own clickery, and can stop reading - at any time - ideas with which they disagree. Furthermore, they are responsible as well for the clickery of their children, who do not own the Internet anymore than anyone else. There are more than enough tools (including the authoritarian and simple, "no," available to allow parents to block any content they don't think their children ought see - and fewer tools, if any, available to the 18+ crowd to allow them to view flocked ideas.
Last, there is a fallacy in your statement that voluntary self-censorship amounts to less (and best) government: if everyone is being "responsible" and self-censoring, and controversial ideas are thereby kept from the broader populace, that only amounts to stronger government, albeit it with less personnel, which is at odds with the idea that less (weaker) is best.
At least, I think so, anyway.