[info]madlodger_007 in [info]07refugees

LJ Automatically Removes Videos Marked "Explicit Adult Content"

I am not sure if this issue was discussed here before, you are welcome to delete this post if it was.

I am on IJ now (going permanent soon)  but keep a basic LJ account to keep in touch with friends. Today I decided to post imbedded video in one of my entries. That video was a joke and had some naked Barbie Dolls having sex as explicit content *cough, cough*. OK, I know that I am immature! 

My journal is set to Adult Concepts because, frankly, I don't see why anyone under 14 would want to read my entries nor would I want them to. But I digress. I posted that "Barbie Porn" video in a f-locked post. And then I decided to use "Explicit Adult Content" setting for the first time. Just being a responsible adult and censoring my own entry.

LJ automatically removed a video in the entry marked "Explicit Adult Content"!!!
All I had left on my Recent Entries page was written staff.
So, I deleted the entry altogether.

Perhaps everybody already knows about this, but to me it was a total shock. My entry was never public, going from "private" to "friendslocked". But video content got removed as soon as marked "Explicit". And it's quite possible that the fact of auto-removal of "adult" video from my journal is tallied somewhere in my account stats. 

The very first use of Explicit self-censoring was a huge disappointment and I am not inclined to repeat this experience.
I used to think that it was a useful tool, a convenience, but the way it's implemented - no.


The problem with "Adult concepts" (or either tag) is that people who are logged out--or who haven't given LJ their birthday--will see NOTHING of your entry except "this entry may contain adult concepts." No initial explanation, no stuff outside your cut tags. No way to warn them if this is a long entry or full of squicky stuff they might not want to read at work.

In fact, the whole "may contain adult concepts" tag may make people's jobs think twice about LJ access at all.

Unless you post stuff that minors are not legally allowed to see (and we have no laws that separate 13-year-olds from other minors, in terms of content), there's no reason to use the flagging at all. And minors are allowed to see pretty much everything except certain types of sexual IMAGES. (Text, they can see any of.)
Yep, that severe chopped tags look is about the worst way to execute a warning tool. It seems that all warnings and a title have to be squeezed inside the "subject".

Excellent point about people's jobs as well, I couldn't agree more.

The idea in itself actually is not a bad one, it's the non-user-friendly execution which sucks :(

*helpless thrashing over your icon* <3
ironychan at LJ wrote the song after Strikethrough 1.0. I iconized it, because it was too good to pass up.
I particularly appreciate the colors: Avada Kedavra green on the backdrop of darkness.
*humps the icon*