![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Here's the low down on BOLDTHROUGH'07 from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
metafandom and the purging of fan lj's.
Why this is a bigger deal to me than Strikethrough'07:
Not only is the art work of one of the purged LJ users very questionably (he looks anywhere from 16-25) depicting an underage fictional character, but this is exactly the kind of sexually explicit depiction![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
burr86 said LJ would not go after--borderline teen/adult.
The other LJ user, who not only had a permanent account purged without prior notice, reports that the artwork in question was flocked and so she did do the courtesy of not putting it on display for wandering underage members of the public to encounter.
What makes this worse is that both LJ users were members of a fan community who had asked and welcomed LJ to review their community to help them devise guidelines that would suit LJ. To purge journals of their members after this request was made is low down dirty dealing.
Adding to the low down dirty dealings, LJ has changed the format of suspended usernames so the suspensions couldn't be immediately recognized by strikethrough's.
I do not see any reason why LJ, as a courtesy, couldn't inform users before such a purge to give them a chance to back up other writings and artwork that has importance to them, especially when what LJ is considering a violation here is on very shaky definitional grounds even within the laws of the US.
If this is the courtesy LJ is affording its users, after wasting our time with totally useless clarifications, then I'm seriously looking into other journal options now.
I do not think the depiction of fictional underage characters in artwork, that is not using photographs of real persons, and text should fall under any legal definitions of underage pornography. From the way they are handling this, I think it's a matter of time before LJ goes after fictional "of age" sexually explicit material.
Ah, a response from LJ; basically, the standards were "they didn't like the picture." Great.
My greatestjournal account is also lavendertook and I'll start transitioning over there when I figure out the open source code thing. I'm in the process of backing up and moving all my dear LotR and MESPT inspired sockpuppet accounts there as well.
I still have some things I want to say about the HP: D_D discussion on racism, and thoughts on DH, and more pic posts about my habitat, so not gone yet, but serious consideration of journal migration has begun for me because LJ's choices here are all very disappointing and disturbing.
ETA Some further thoughts I had on BoldThrough"07 here--are we dealing with sexism? Since all women are supposed to look like they are 16-25, is LJ's problem here with the depiction of a male as subject of a female gaze, and charges of underaged depiction being used to cover this, because adult male desire of 15-18 year old appearing females is regarded as normal, and even mandatory, not deviant in western culture?
metafandom and the purging of fan lj's.Why this is a bigger deal to me than Strikethrough'07:
Not only is the art work of one of the purged LJ users very questionably (he looks anywhere from 16-25) depicting an underage fictional character, but this is exactly the kind of sexually explicit depiction
burr86 said LJ would not go after--borderline teen/adult. The other LJ user, who not only had a permanent account purged without prior notice, reports that the artwork in question was flocked and so she did do the courtesy of not putting it on display for wandering underage members of the public to encounter.
What makes this worse is that both LJ users were members of a fan community who had asked and welcomed LJ to review their community to help them devise guidelines that would suit LJ. To purge journals of their members after this request was made is low down dirty dealing.
Adding to the low down dirty dealings, LJ has changed the format of suspended usernames so the suspensions couldn't be immediately recognized by strikethrough's.
I do not see any reason why LJ, as a courtesy, couldn't inform users before such a purge to give them a chance to back up other writings and artwork that has importance to them, especially when what LJ is considering a violation here is on very shaky definitional grounds even within the laws of the US.
If this is the courtesy LJ is affording its users, after wasting our time with totally useless clarifications, then I'm seriously looking into other journal options now.
I do not think the depiction of fictional underage characters in artwork, that is not using photographs of real persons, and text should fall under any legal definitions of underage pornography. From the way they are handling this, I think it's a matter of time before LJ goes after fictional "of age" sexually explicit material.
Ah, a response from LJ; basically, the standards were "they didn't like the picture." Great.
My greatestjournal account is also lavendertook and I'll start transitioning over there when I figure out the open source code thing. I'm in the process of backing up and moving all my dear LotR and MESPT inspired sockpuppet accounts there as well.
I still have some things I want to say about the HP: D_D discussion on racism, and thoughts on DH, and more pic posts about my habitat, so not gone yet, but serious consideration of journal migration has begun for me because LJ's choices here are all very disappointing and disturbing.
ETA Some further thoughts I had on BoldThrough"07 here--are we dealing with sexism? Since all women are supposed to look like they are 16-25, is LJ's problem here with the depiction of a male as subject of a female gaze, and charges of underaged depiction being used to cover this, because adult male desire of 15-18 year old appearing females is regarded as normal, and even mandatory, not deviant in western culture?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Legally, they do, however, if they trigger an obscenity reading. I see this as LJ covering its ass (which the underage characters could do ;)).
From:
no subject
And I suspect we've got issues of sexism and homophobia going on here--I doubt if the Harry figure was replaced by a female character, they'd have any trouble with it at all--because 16-25 is what all adult women are supposed to look like. Perhaps they are not too keen of their female slasher fanbase that places male bodies under the gaze.
On top of this, it's how they're treating their customers--no benefit of the doubt with an area of legality that is very grey to boot. Their TOS does not bind them to the most extreme action. There's no reason they could not have taken down the offending entry and left the rest of the users journal intact. Or even if they truly felt a ban was in order, there's no reason they could not inform the LJ user first and give them a day to back up their writings and other artwork. This isn't about removing the offense--this is about punishing the offender with no notice and no recourse. I don't like working with this LJ company now.
As a private company, LJ may be within their rights to do this--but it's making me feel very wary about doing business with them when they feel this is a proper way to treat their customers. Additionally, I'm seeing fans raise questions about the legality of LJ's actions here and their lack of properly informing their custoners on what their rules are. Fandom asked for some clear guidlines during Strikethrough'07--LJ did not provide those.
From:
no subject
HOWEVER.
They represented to their users, in the context of both encouraging customers to remain paid users and enticing customers to buy 'permanent' accounts, that the Miller standard would be used correctly, that fandom's unique context was understood and differentiated from 'paedophile predators,' and, most importantly, that there would be no more deletion-without-warning.
Then they permanently banned not just the 'offending' two accounts, but all associated accounts, without warning, including multiple paid accounts and at least one (newly purchased!) permanent account. (*And* they went on to libel and defame the two individuals targeted, which is also legally actionable.)
This is a fraud technique known as "bait and switch." It is illegal. If the Attorney General of California (where 6A & LJ are headquartered) and/or the equivalent legal representative for other areas where substantial numbers of users reside don't take SixApart to court on their own, we can initiate a class-action suit against them -- and win, though it's far more likely there would be an out-of-court settlement.
(To be clear, members of the class would *not* include anyone who did not pay money to LJ between 29 May 2007 and some date after these deletions which allows for a reasonable -- as determined by the judge -- time after the event for a user to learn what had happened. I, for example, renewed for 12 months early in the year, so all I can do is point my fellow users to their legal recourse and urge them to pursue it.)
How many people *did* buy permanent accounts on the basis of the way LJ and 6A representatives *advertised* the service would henceforth be run? That's a lot of money even *without* all the people who bought/renewed paid journals, extra userpics, extra server space, rename tokens, virtual gifts, and/or physical merchandise like LJ-logo shirts and hats during those six weeks.
From:
I suspect you're right about sexism/heterosexism being an issue, though.
Not that consistency has ever been Abuse's strong point. Still.
From:
Re: I suspect you're right about sexism/heterosexism being an issue, though.
The thing is, that same HP community that asked LJ to review them and give them clarifications is still being hit. It's a good thing they have the 2 strikes in place now, but the artists who have their one strike against them have reason to feel to betrayed. Nice way to treat a community that was doing the opposite of "gaming the system."
From:
no subject
This would almost make sense if we had a definition of pedophilia/child porn based on puberty, rather than on trying to figure out the exact age when a sexually mature person becomes officially capable of voluntary sex, but the warriors for innocence would probably like to keep raising the age of consent until one is eligible for Social Security.
From:
no subject
I'm just thinking that charges of pedophilia above puberty are really about protecting masculinity (teenage girls are excluded from this protection/policing) and LJ's actions are reflecting this. First and foremost, they are bending to the pressure from Perverted Justice and their ilk that have set up shop so centrally in the US.
But these pressure groups are not dictating the way LJ is punishing their customers here--without any kind of notice or courtesy whatsoever. This aggressive--and I think abusive--steamrolling is coming from more than the pressure groups and their conceptions of pedophilia.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
As long as female teen bodies are the standard for the acceptance of women in public, neither of those lobbies is going to get the upper hand on this particular phenomena.
And I do support a ban on photographic porn of children and teens up to 17-18, as an issue of underaged monetary exploitation and personal autonomy, not a problem with child sexuality.
I do think that squelching woman produced and consumed porn serves both the patriarchal fundies and porn industry and makes it particularly vulnerable.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
It's still the" first strike and you're out without warning" treatment of Lj users, who are not harrassing or spamming others, as well as LJ's determining artistic value, that disturbs me most here with how LJ is doing business. I'm thinking of organizing a fandom LJ strike (boycott on making entries for a week+, which will effect Lj's advertising stats) with a small list of basic demands. I think it could be useful to both the "stay and fight" and the "go elsewhere" camps. Whaddya think?
From:
no subject
Yep. I think maybe the link to *forgot* bad_wolf (please see my last lj post) is a way to go. It's only about money after all, so if people really complain to that BBB over a period of days, with calm reasonable business objections regarding LJs refusal to clarify TOS etc., that might go somewhere. IIRC, last time it was also some media article that had an effect.
From:
no subject
"boycott on making entries for a week+, which will effect LJ's advertising stats"
I think this is an excellent idea. While I can't imagine leaving LJ permanently, I do have a "Plus" account (which I keep because I like to do polls) and have been wondering if people with these accounts could do something en masse. Individuals "threatening" to leave LJ don't mean much, but, a large group simultaneously depriving LJ of a portion of its advertising revenue might have an effect. I'd want to find someone who understands the nitty-gritty of how LJ makes its money via advertisers, though, just to be sure we didn't all inadvertantly act in a way that TPTB felt comfortable ignoring.
From:
no subject
I'm not thrilled with the retroactive strikes against two more fans in that same HP community. My paid account runs out in January, and so far, I'm not making plans to renew paying. I will definitley never go plus account and help them with their advertising.
From:
no subject
I'd been thinking about the fact that "Harry Potter" in that picture could be pretty much any age corresponding to the ages at which women are thought to be most attractive (roughly 16-25, as you stated.) I think you're right. I can't imagine that a drawing of an attractive young woman who might, just might, be 17 rather than 18, with an older man, would have resulted in immediate banning without warning. Of course, such a banning would have been totally wrong, as well, but, I really can't imagine that these LJ/6A guys would have had the...nerve...to do it.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
are we dealing with sexism? Since all women are supposed to look like they are 16-25, is LJ's problem here with the depiction of a male as subject of a female gaze, and charges of underaged depiction being used to cover this, because adult male desire of 15-18 year old appearing females is regarded as normal, and even mandatory, not deviant in western culture?
I had more or less the same thought. I don't think it happens on an conscious level or as intentionally as that, but inherently, yes. At least in the reporting of artwork. I sincerely hope LJ would be consistent (ouch, I think I strained something) when it comes to gender in investigating what's reported to them, but the reports on which they say they are acting can be completely random. And I suspect arguably adolescent boys depicted would be more likely to catch the eye in the first place, because it's further outside 'the norm', so they would be more likely to get reported. And the end result is the same, intention or no.
(Don't know how it is in other countries, but here we have girls looking nothing over sixteen being advertised as 'teens' on late night sex ads on tv every damn night. And nobody seems to blink an eye.)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
This is a very good point. Slash itself is controversial IMO in part because women are taking a pro-active, forthright stance in sexualizing men. IOW, slash to me represents the development of a "female gaze." It doesn't really matter whether men enjoy it or not - the point is that *women* enjoy it.
I seriously doubt there would be the same hoopla over a painting of a young-adult het couple (again, aged 16-25), even if the same level of explicitness were involved.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
This is a really interesting point. Women are supposed to look borderline underage; women who apply the same logic to men are subverting the accepted paradigm. I wonder what the gender composition of whoever decides whether a work is "art" or not is? (That is, if it's actually a committee, however casual, vs. the whims of one person. *rolls eyes*)
From:
no subject
Will they ever give us some transparency on who is determining what on their committeees? I'm not holding my breath.
From:
OT: links on advertising
I don't know if these will serve your needs or not (the first two are somewhat dated), but they certainly seem to support that online posting volume and advertising revenue are connected.
http://www.sifry.com/alerts/archives/000298.html
http://www.sifry.com/alerts/archives/000299.html
http://www.projectwonderful.com/advertisehere.php?id=2258
From:
Re: OT: links on advertising
Thank you so much--there's a start!
And now we wait to see if they really post on LJ-Biz tonight--this should be good.