[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

I've never understood the unwanted friending stuff, but a lot of people here on IJ have asked for policies on that too. I really don't get it. So some random person is watching your journal. You're not obligated to friend them back if you don't know them. They could do the exact same thing by just going to your journal and reading any public posts.
I completely agree. I've never understood the whining about unwanted friending. If seeing their name on your (general "your") userinfo is that rage-inducing, do a ban-set. It's not, as my friend says, rocket surgery. *g*
I think it has a lot to do with the loaded term "friend" actually. It implies many overlapping interests. If someone you didn't know friended you and you looked at their journal and were horrified by what you saw there wouldn't you be upset to have them listed on your profile next to the term "friend" (even just in a "friend of" listing)?

I know I'd rather they used "friend" for the mutual friends and "watching" or "reading" and "watched by" or "read by" for the one way connections.
Oh. I guess that makes sense, then. In which case, I wonder why they don't just change the terminology (on all the LJ based sites)... That might make a good suggestion for IJ.
The last time I made a suggestion... well I'm not in a hurry to do that again.

But if you want to hop over to [info]ideas and suggest it, go for it. It should be a lot less controversial than what I was hoping for. :)
I agree with you that the term is loaded and I've never understood why any of the clones haven't changed it (and I know they can fairly easily, since LJ has occasionally changed them for joke holidays, such as Talk Like A Pirate Day), but I still think doing a ban-set is easier and more efficient than expecting an administrative policy to take care of it.

To me, it's kind of like the PM system at TWOP; with a forum as huge as that, sometimes you can get really nasty PMs. There's always the option of asking one of the mods to intervene, but it's just easier to block that user from PMing you again, and makes less work for the people who are doing the truly important things involved in keeping the site running smoothly. Does that make sense? It's not a perfect analogy but, um...I'm going to have some more coffee. Heh.
If one of the random people that friended me were really creepy I'd just ban them as well. The thing is that most people don't know squat about admin console so they don't know they can ban someone and get them off their profile.

Really, they need a "ban" ticky box on the manage friends page. Make it go through a confirmation page so you can't do it accidentally and that should cover it.
That is a fantastic idea! At the very least, a primer on how to use the admin console should be really easy to find for new users. I think I was on LJ for at least a year before I even knew there was an admin console.
I'd like that. There's several people who I'd love to remove because I hate them. >;-)

But really, you should have the option of saying, er no I don't want this person to have me on their list. GJ used to have it and I liked it.

Its easier than doing custom lists because at least here, I'm trying to keep things public. LJ was completely locked down and it was impossible to see or talk to anyone new like it is here.