[info]ex_damien542 in [info]07refugees

Better Business Bureau?

Why don't we complain?

Quite frankly, it didn't occur to me to complain to an American organization (I live outside America) but if we can do it online, then I suppose it's easier.

The problem is that right now, I don't think I have anything I could actually register as a complaint. LJ finally gave us guidelines -- which it's refusing to add to the TOS -- but it did give us guidelines. Complain for unreliable service and delays in answering valid concerns?

At any rate, I think that it comes a little too late but if we end up having to deal with a third round of Strikethrough '07 (has anyone seen an explanation yet for the bold, btw?), then maybe it'll be useful.
Tags: , ,

Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 at 10:40 am | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Comments


[info]arkadyrose

How about the fact that according to a recent ruling by 9th Circuit judges (which covers California and therefore LJ/SA), they've acted illegally by not informing customers (i.e. LJ account holders) prior to each revamp of the TOS? Said ruling states that online notification is not sufficient, and customers should be informed directly (e.g. by email) before changing the TOS.

Don't know about you, but I certainly haven't received any such emails; and LJ/SA have been changing the TOS willy-nilly as it suits them andonly informing us after the fact.

Oh, and the change to bold instead of strikethrough is because bolding a name but omitting the user icon stands out less than a line striking through the name, so you're less likely to notice at first that the account has been suspended or deleted - particularly as the name will at the same time disappear from friend and friend-of listings on profiles. They just vanish quietly, unnoticed - or that's what LJ Abuse hope, anyway.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 09:52 am (UTC) | | Thread | Reply

[info]keieeeye

There's some great comment action on the lj_biz post about the new TOS laws, too. :P
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 11:45 am (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

[info]ex_damien542

...That might work, except that they're not changing the actual TOS itself. Someone asked if the new guidelines are going into the TOS and was told no -- I think that's in the original post.

I wonder if that's why SA decided on that?

As for the bold thing, I meant an official explanation. XD Not that I'm arguing with the idea that bolded names are less visible, I just want to hear how SA justify that move -- the little head gif cannot take up that much space!
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 12:43 pm (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]elfwreck

California judges are, for the most part, able to understand that "the terms of service you require your customers to adhere to" are what's important, regardless of what you put on your website.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 09:55 pm (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

[info]dragovianknight

Except they're REFUSING to actually add any of this to the TOS, claiming it's covered under some of the vague info already there.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 06:35 pm (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

[info]elfwreck

You can complain to the BBB that the customer service is slow and erratic, and that one of the staff members publicly mocked the customers while implying they were criminals.

You can complain that their guidelines are contradictory in spots and hard to understand, and that they've consistently refused to answer more specific questions.
Posted on Aug. 8th, 2007 09:57 pm (UTC) | | Reply