![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
I'm reading through the AWS Acceptable Use Policy. I don't think anything there precludes hosting InsaneJournal there. I feel that our existing Terms of Service falls in line with this. I'd love to have an open discussion about this, so please comment with concerns. Please keep all conversations civil.
No Illegal, Harmful, or Offensive Use or Content
* You may not use, or encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to use, the Services or AWS Site for any illegal, harmful, fraudulent, infringing or offensive use, or to transmit, store, display, distribute or otherwise make available content that is illegal, harmful, fraudulent, infringing or offensive. Prohibited activities or content include:
* Illegal, Harmful or Fraudulent Activities. Any activities that are illegal, that violate the rights of others, or that may be harmful to others, our operations or reputation, including disseminating, promoting or facilitating child pornography, offering or disseminating fraudulent goods, services, schemes, or promotions, make-money-fast schemes, ponzi and pyramid schemes, phishing, or pharming.
* Infringing Content. Content that infringes or misappropriates the intellectual property or proprietary rights of others.
* Offensive Content. Content that is defamatory, obscene, abusive, invasive of privacy, or otherwise objectionable, including content that constitutes child pornography, relates to bestiality, or depicts non-consensual sex acts.
* Harmful Content. Content or other computer technology that may damage, interfere with, surreptitiously intercept, or expropriate any system, program, or data, including viruses, Trojan horses, worms, time bombs, or cancelbots.
Some fanfic depicts non-consensual sex acts. For that matter, a whole lot of mainstream romance depicts non-consensual sex acts; it's just considered okay if they "fall in love" after.
And the "otherwise objectionable" clause can be used to selectively ban anything the reviewer dislikes. This is always the case online - most TOS's have something like that - and it comes down to: do you trust the reviewer. I trust the staff here, who are in favor of fannish content and have a hands-off approach to content that isn't bothering anyone on the writer's friendslist.
I don't trust Amazon's reviewers, should they decide to look over InsaneJournal to decide if its content is suitable for their servers, or their business development plans, or whatever other reason they might discover to start investigating the contents of sites they host.
wariness. Thank you for articulating what I might have said.
"Obscene" or "Otherwise objectionable"
And this is the same company that makes the always-listening-unless-you-hit-the-mute-b
Re: "Obscene" or "Otherwise objectionable"
Note that current mainstream porn magazines and movies are not "obscene," or they wouldn't be legal to send through the mail. The standards for "obscene" content are pretty limited.
"Objectionable" is entirely based on the opinion of the reviewer.