Comments | dragonkal: This whole journal thing.

dragonkal

This whole journal thing.

Jul 26, 2007 23:08

I've avoided this topic because I know I'm in the minority in my opinion, but that's never been a good reason to stay silent, has it?

( I simply don't see 6A/LJ as the bad guy. )

censorship, fandom, soapbox, strikethrough 2007

Comments 13

pseudoblu July 28 2007, 01:34:31 UTC

I agree with all you said. Thanks for voicing it so well.

(The comment has been removed)

dragonkal July 29 2007, 18:30:51 UTC

WfI's terms of what constitutes paedophiia is elastic.

I'm still not sure what that means -- I've asked a couple of people to provide more info. Could you?

Without having specific info, I'll still go out on a limb and say that at least part of the problem is that American terms of what constitutes pedophilia is elastic. We're not dealing with a simple binary setup here. Everybody's confused and LJ's trying to cover their ass.

To use a non-internet example, when Showtime decided to remake Queer as Folk for the US market, the character who was 15 in the UK (one year under age of consent) became 17 (one year under our age of consent). This set off a HUGE firestorm of controversy. Showtime ultimately put up a warning before each show to make sure people knew what they were getting into, and also assuring that all the actors were over 18. All of this on top of being an M-rated show on a cable network ( ... )

(The comment has been removed)

dragonkal July 31 2007, 01:29:32 UTC

Do you mind if I quote it in my journal?

Please feel free.

You know what? I wish someone had said this at the start, and used an example like the one you gave. It makes a lot more sense put like that, and I think a lot more people would be a lot less confused.

Wow, thank you. You have no idea how close I came to not saying anything about this at all -- I've been keeping my mouth shut since this started -- so I'm really glad to see that what I had to say was useful.

I do think part of the problem is that the person whose job it was to inform us of this chance in the TOS (burr68, I think - I've not tagged his/her name because I'm not sure if I got the number right) wasn't sure what to say or how to say it, and that didn't help with the confusion issue.Certainly. I think there's probably a whole other issue there that LJ would do well to correct -- that is, some better, less informal way of talking to its users about important things. I think they want to seem friendly and just-us-folks, but sometimes a company has to behave like ( ... )