(Untitled)

[theljstaff]

Concerns regarding Adult Content programWe wanted to address some concerns about the program put in place last month regarding adult content. This system came about due to a variety of legal, community, and industry standards. There are no punitive measures for deciding not to participate, and is designed so that logged-in users over the age of

Comments

[marta]

We can't answer those questions right now, but wanted to do something other than ignore them. I'm sorry that's the case; we will still work on removing the way it hampers searches, even if we can't comment.

[gillen]

"Beria, something must be done about this badlydrawnjeff person. Please see to it. All my love to the children. - J"

[kahlan_amnell]

Could you tell us why you choose to ban some terms, but not others?

Could you fix the system so it doesn't ban terms containing similar letters?

[marta]

We'll be looking into the problem with substring matches on the terms but, unfortunately, can't address the reasons behind it.

[gillen]

"We'll be looking into the problem"
The "problem" is filtering search terms in the first place, but I doubt strongly that anyone will be looking into that.

unfortunately
Unfortunate implies that this has been a matter of either fate or happenstance, which official policy clearly isn't. This is a deliberate decision, and you all don't get off the hook by claiming that you are simply victims of circumstance.

"can't address the reasons"
Sorry, that's "won't address the reasons". You're perfectly capable of telling us why you have deliberately chosen to handicap your services by blocking a seemingly random collection of epithets and activities. ('genocide' is a double-plus-ungood word now but 'ethnic cleansing' [13 communities / 44 users], 'mass-murder' [357 communities / 367 users] and 'rape' [343 communities / 333 users] are just fine? WTHBF??) You simply choose not to tell us

[cattyhunts]

Sorry, that's "won't address the reasons". You're perfectly capable of telling us why you have deliberately chosen to handicap your services by blocking a seemingly random collection of epithets and activities. ('genocide' is a double-plus-ungood word now but 'ethnic cleansing' [13 communities / 44 users], 'mass-murder' [357 communities / 367 users] and 'rape' [343 communities / 333 users] are just fine? WTHBF??) You simply choose not to tell us.

I.Love.You

[trobadora]

*points at list* Indeed, this post opens more questions than it answers.

(Edited to fix typo)

[charliemc]

+1

(I'm still shocked by the concept of keeping mum on things here at LiveJournal. It strikes me as entirely wrong...)

[warui_ki]

Thank you for, at the very least, referencing our concerns. One thing I can suggest is removing the interest search blocks completely. If users could more easily search for racist and illegal content, they could more easily report it, thereby boosting the utility of the Adult Flagging system.

Just a suggestion. I think things are heading in a more positive direction than they were previously, so as long as you pay attention to the issues that many people have brought up, I think things will only improve.

*Edit: First page!

[marta]

Right now we can't lift the search blocks completely, but it's not tied into the flagging system because the areas of need for the two aren't the same.

Thank you for the affirmative comment - we are reading and paying attention to what effects everyone and hope you'll see the result of that in the future, too.

[warui_ki]

Thanks for the answer! I think by "Adult Flagging" I actually meant "Abuse Reporting," but I can see how there might still be a difference. :)

[marta]

It didn't have to do with either - so whichever it was it's still true!

[j00j]

1) Could you please clarify what problem blocking search terms solves? Why these search terms are blocked? I recognize that there are issues involved with content that may violate LJ's TOS, but (debates about chilling effects on discussion aside) is preventing people from searching for certain interest really the best way to do this? It seems impossible to block all, or even most terms that might lead to such material (e.g. you've blocked certain terms associated with Nazism in English, but not the equivalent terms in German, and searches on these do definitely lead to the type of material you are probably trying to prevent people from searching for). Why prevent people from searching for terms when they can still be listed as interests and such content can still exist on LJ? Does preventing searches on these terms somehow offer LJ additional legal protection? I simply want to understand the logic behind this

[marta]

Unfortunately, we can't clarify the problem which caused the blocked search-terms. Over time we hope to eliminate terms and substring matches, but it won't be something we *can* comment on.

[fengi]

Why? Again, are you legally prevented from doing so? What possible reason exists? Is a certain government or owner threatening to destroy Livejournal if the problem is revealed? Has the FBI placed a gag order on Livejournal? I find this all very hard to believe and more importantly, I doubt there's any sort of LJ issue which could ever create a real truly binding gag order.

[mdlbear]

Sorry, that's not an acceptable answer. It makes no sense to use a substring search that mysteriously blocks perfectly acceptable interests, and it makes even less sense not to talk about it unless the only reason is to cover up somebody's idiotic mistake.