Well we really screwed this one up…

[news]

For reasons we are still trying to figure out what was supposed to be a well planned attempt to clean up a few journals that were violating LiveJournal's policies that protect minors turned into a total mess. I can only say I’m sorry, explain what we did wrong and what we are doing to correct these problems and explain what we were trying to do but

Comments

[barakb25]

We need to deal with journals that are pointed out to us that THEN turn out to actually violate our policies. We do deal with content that is in violation of our policies. It would be inaccurate to say we don’t do this.

[amokk]

Except your apology admits that you didn't do this at all, that you suspended them before reviewing some of them...

So, seems accurate.

[rhapsody]

The question is then that are you going to undelete those that have nothing to do with what you were looking for and are based on fiction?

[tekalynn]

I hope you've brewed a pot of strong coffee. You're gonna have a LONG night.

[indie_young]

sound advice.

[julieannie]

Your policies appear ambiguous because while you have told others that simply supporting or fantasizing about a fetish is not deletable, today your company has proven that having an interest in it is suspendable. You need a clear and concise policy for both users and employees/volunteers so everyone is on the same page. It is unfair to arbitrarily decide how to enforce policies. I want children kept safe and in many cases, you have decided against the common good. Perverted Justice has pointed out dozens upon dozens of journals to you and they receive form letters back stating:

Dear Ms. Surname Removed:
Thank you for contacting the LiveJournal Abuse Team. While we cannot
discuss any particular cases except with the individuals directly
involved, we will be happy to explain our policy to you.
LiveJournal is committed to the principle of free speech. This means
that users are allowed to post a wide variety of content, including that
which others may find objectionable. This includes the theoretical

[lexin]

I am still seriously bothered by all this - something still want explaining.

It appears to me from what you say above, that you're implying you did no research into the credentials of the compalainant(s) before acting - but (from them) we know that when they first approached 6A, you blew them off. So, what changed? Did Wankers for Idiocy buy shares or something?

[kaberett]

Yes, but when pointed out by the USERS of LJ, you have PERSISTENTLY not done so. Why - if not because you were scared of the advertisers - have you changed your minds about this one?

I'd also like answers to the questions posed at the beginning of this thread.

I'd also like to know what Brad thinks about this.

LiveJournal is not SixApart. You have upset us with your comment about "the community we want to build" - made while you were giving no signs to the community that you knew it existed. We will resent anything we see as empire-building without a care for the little people: LiveJournal is ABOUT the little people.

Please, please - SixApart have broken promises made to us about ads and so on in the past. We are here for the community. Try to understand your market and try not to alienate it, because WE WANT TO KEEP GIVING YOU OUR MONEY.

Ask and ye shall receive

[foxfirefey]

I'd also like to know what Brad thinks about this.

Ask and ye shall receive

Re: Ask and ye shall receive

[kaberett]

And, y'know, if I'd been awake and things I might have thought to check there myself ;)

Ta much.

The Spirit of LiveJournal, she is good.

Re: Ask and ye shall receive

[thesilentsenshi]

No kidding.

[technosage]

Who will constitute a reasonable person in this context? Is it a reasonable middle American fundie? Or a reasonable fannish LJer?

A direct statement about fannish interests needs to be given. Period. No hedging. Will 6A and LJ allow fans to continue writing consensual underage fic and fictionalized incest stories, or will it not?

[esprix]

Everyone can agree that active participation in an illegal activity is contrary to LJ's TOS.

The question at hand, however, is why have you consistently told your users that discussion of an illegal activity is neither illegal nor a suspendable offense, and then suddenly and arbitrarily suspend 500 accounts based on one non-user complaint when there was no proof any of them had done anything other than discuss an illegal activity?