WTF, LJ?

[lavendertook]

Here's the low down on BOLDTHROUGH'07 from 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?

Comments

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

Well, my "should's" aside, the legality is gray here--obscenity interpretation here is very, very gray. My problem is how LJ led these LJ users into states of complacency with their so-called clarifications on LJ-biz--the art work I did see falls directly under statements I saw burr86 make about what fan products weren't in danger of violation here--the ambiguous older teen/adult line.

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.

[buggery.livejournal.com]

Their TOS gives them the right to ban any user at any time for any reason, and all users agreed to that.

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.

I suspect you're right about sexism/heterosexism being an issue, though.

[buggery.livejournal.com]

It *is* frankly dodgy that they're specifically targeting both imagery of homosexual relations, and imagery of youngER males being created by women for the female gaze. One really has to wonder, if it were some guy's painting of, say, Jerry Lee Lewis and Myra Gale Brown on their wedding night, if whoever in Abuse got the complaint would have knee-jerked as hard... or at all.

Not that consistency has ever been Abuse's strong point. Still.

Re: I suspect you're right about sexism/heterosexism being an issue, though.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

And still isn't, apparently. (-;

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."