[info]simons_flower in [info]07refugees

LJ's latest

*headdesk*

First, the policy entry for comment.
Second, the draft proposal for review.

Select portions:
Bandwidth Theft
Last updated: 6 March 2008

Summary

A user is remote-loading content from a third party website without the website owner’s permission.

Action
The offender will be required to cease remotely loading the material. This follows the Standard Compliance Timeline.

Note
Does not apply to simply linking to content. Offender is permitted to continue use of the material if they choose to remotely load it from webspace under their own control.

Explanation
Though we acknowledge that it is the webmaster's responsibility to prevent the unauthorized remote loading of images from their site to LiveJournal, this is not always possible. Likewise, a user may wish for their images to be free from unauthorized reproduction by other LiveJournal users, but still use their website to store content such as background images for their own LiveJournal account. Because the unauthorized remote loading of images can incur a high bandwidth bill, we will require users who are remotely loading images without authorization to cease doing so.

See Also
Copyright Violation
This one I don't get at all. They even admit that it's "the webmaster's responsibility to prevent unauthorized remote loading of images" so why are they getting involved?

Then there's this one, which we all know exactly what this stems from:
Non-Photographic images of minors
Last updated: March 6th, 2008

Summary

Non-photographic images (cartoons, drawings, etc.) of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct are present on LiveJournal.

Action
Users who have posted non-photographic images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct will be required to remove the material, following the Standard Compliance Timeline.

Note
We are not making any determination on the legality of non-photographic images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This is simply a type of content LiveJournal has decided not to host.

Explanation
LiveJournal attempts to grant users the ability to express themselves in as many ways as possible. In the case of this content, however, LiveJournal has chosen not to host it due to its highly controversial nature.
Fuckheads. It wasn't controversial until you pulled accounts without warning for it.

They do, however, finally have a provision about Self Harm (specifically, "Material posted which encourages or instructs others on how to engage in destructive behavior such as, self-injury, self-mutilation, anorexia, drug or alcohol overdose, or suicide.") so that's something. I know one of the primary complaints during the brouhaha last spring was that LJ did nothing about the anorexia and self-harm communities that promoted the behavior, only pulled down artwork about fictional characters nominally under the fictional age of consent.

But then, further on, there's a provision about Unwanted Friending. This is a problem people have reported? Are they insane? How can you stop someone from friending you without banning them? Complete idiots.

Cross-posted from my journal.

Comments

Wait so does this:

LiveJournal has chosen not to host it due to its highly controversial nature.

mean that you can link to it elsewhere but not upload it to an LJ album, or is that no allowed either?

And yeah, I don't really see why they felt the need to include the "unwanted friending" thing. If someone's made an account just to harrass and spam people, then that would fall under "harrasment" and "spam".
You could interpret it to mean that, so long as the artwork (or other representation) is not hosted at LJ, such as in their Scrapbook, merely linked (from a site you have permission to hotlink to... don't want to run afoul of the other provision), it's okay.

Somehow, though, I don't think that's what they mean.

I am glad to see they remove the atrocious provision they were discussing last August about users being responsible for external links.
Marta (or was it Mark) stated in a comment that linking to unwanted content is not allowed either and will get you a suspension similar to that of a direct posting to LJ.
Actually, he said that the poster would be asked to remove the link, so perhaps they're at least not so quick with the banhammer any more...
You mean like when they promised not to do those out-of-the-blue suspensions and two days later did another round? ;0)

I think, before people get too enthusiastic about the new closer-to-clarity-LJ, they need to remember how little promises and actual events fit together last time.

But of course there is still hope they've improved... then again, nah.
So they haven't changed their tune at all and are still just as clueless. *headdesk*