Re: Flagging and feedback

[foxfirefey]

The feedback link to report offensive or inappropriate ads was removed, despite the system being imperfect in its screening and not every creative being reviewed before its display on the site.

A flagging link that can report offensive or (not very well defined) (the nebulous "adult oriented content" cannot be used for flagging, thankfully)

Comments

Public only.

[elfwreck]

Flags only on PUBLIC posts.

Y'know, they could've avoided a whole lot of wank by making it very clear that these new flags only apply to public posts, and that declaring a journal "Explicit" is only based on the unlocked content.

Re: Public only.

[component]

wow, lame. i didnt even know that until i read your comment. well at least if theres a weasle on my friends list they cant harass my friends only posts 'cause there's no flag :) Thank god for that >_>

[foxfirefey]

Using the ages of people (now that many users will almost be forced to put in their birth year just to see content we could see previously) for advertising makes me grind my teeth.

If the year of birth is publicly displayed, I think it is fair game. Otherwise, I think it should not be passed in ad parameters.

Also, I can see the content I saw previously, I just have to jump through annoying hoops to see it.

[donutgirl]

My worry is that a lot of people are going to point out that anyone can get an 18+ LJ by simply lying about their age. Will LJ respond to that by making everyone fax in some government-issued age verification before they can create a new journal? That makes it awfully hard to keep an anonymous journal.

[foxfirefey]

I doubt they will unless it is legally required--they only require that in certain instances due to COPPA, and that is nothing new.

[donutgirl]

As a temporary solution, anyone who is experiencing this problem can contact coppa@livejournal.com with their username and a copy of any government issued identification which includes a date of birth. seen here.

I'm not being chicken little, here, I know they said this was only a temporary solution, and only people who, for whatever reason, listed themselves incorrectly as *younger* than they actually are. Still... if they're really serious about "protect the children!" I don't know that it's so far fetched that they might ask this of everyone.

[schnee]

Easiest solution: enter a false birthyear that'll still show you're over 18 (if you are; I'm not advocating minors do this, nosiree), and also set your birthday to "don't show to anybody" so in order to not confuse your friends. And while you're at it, install adblock. c.c

[soph]

As has been pointed out in the comments to the lj_biz post, it's not even particularly hard to get access if you're underage - simply log out. Here's how things go when you're logged out, reposted from a comment I made in that post:

Step 1: Click the LJ-cut

[foxfirefey]

Theories are that it's more about having plausible deniability, a nice benefit to have in what can be a sue-happy country with conflicted feelings about what teens should or shouldn't be exposed to. (Like, y'know, safe sex ed.)

"No, they didn't just stumble upon it by accident on our service! They lied or jumped through hoops to get it, and we just can't control that."

[soph]

Well, I suggested in the other thread that really, it's probably the best outcome. There'd have been more of an outcry if they checked credit card info on every access without a cookie, for example.

[foxfirefey]

And rightly so, since that is a real way to make your stuff inaccessible.

[makomk]

By the way, the page you have to click through to get to adult content when logged out has ads on it. Even if you're viewing a paid/permanent user's journal! (Sample post - log out, turn off your ad blocker and take a look. It's on a permanent account, so it really shouldn't have an ad on, but it has a nice IMVU vertical ad on the right hand side.)

[soph]

I suspect that that wasn't actually intended - technically something like that probably should be considered as part of the journal itself. As it is, the way it works is that it just takes a URL to redirect to afterwards, so it's harder to determine Paid status or not.

Hopefully the right people will see this and make the changes necessary.