![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
LJ turning against its own defenders?
Does anyone have a screenshot of or remember who posted the top-level content in this thread? As you can see from the responses, the commenter had been defending LJ's actions on the basis that 'fan art depicting UNDERAGED characters in explicit sexual situations is child porn and possibly obscene under US law.'
I doubt it was this comment the user was suspended over, but the fact that someone ostensibly arguing that LJ's inconsistent and baseless 'policy' 'clarifications' are laudable and required in order to comply with the law could themselves be found guilty of a TOS violation, nearly simultaneously with the comment, is surprising.
Depending on the circumstances of the suspension, perhaps this example might even be the wake-up call other LJ users need to get them to to realise that ambiguous and arbitrary policies are a danger to all users, not just some theoretically expendable fringe of fandom.
ETA: Now cross-posted to the fandomtossed community on greatestjournal, here, and the innocence_jihad community on livejournal, here. Thanks to![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
brownbetty for the technical assist.
I doubt it was this comment the user was suspended over, but the fact that someone ostensibly arguing that LJ's inconsistent and baseless 'policy' 'clarifications' are laudable and required in order to comply with the law could themselves be found guilty of a TOS violation, nearly simultaneously with the comment, is surprising.
Depending on the circumstances of the suspension, perhaps this example might even be the wake-up call other LJ users need to get them to to realise that ambiguous and arbitrary policies are a danger to all users, not just some theoretically expendable fringe of fandom.
ETA: Now cross-posted to the fandomtossed community on greatestjournal, here, and the innocence_jihad community on livejournal, here. Thanks to
brownbetty for the technical assist.
I know they *don't* use a three-strikes or even a 'habitual wolf-crier' for people who make false abuse reports maliciously -- I'm saying they ought to.
Of course for that to work, we'd have to be able to trust LJ Abuse to differentiate between someone making maliciously false reports, and someone sincerely reporting things they believe are objectionable but which Abuse decides are okay after investigating. The idea of them trying to make that sort of judgment call is more than a little unsettling.