Strikethrough 2007
Jun. 2nd, 2007 11:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
luckykaaSo the latest LJ Drama has come and gone.
Here's a summary of events
And since then LJ have realised that their users tend to get a bit upset over this, and upset users are problematic, so they relented an reviewed journals.
I have lots of confused feelings about this. This is me sorting out how I feel.
So lets see...
LJ abuse also seem to find it remarkably hard to see other people's side of the story. They refuse to reconsider their position when it's pointed out how daft it is. Last year's Nipplegate scandal showed this attitude.
If LJ have a policy that certain types of material are not permitted, then I have no problem with that. I don't even mind change their policy if they feel the need. I do have a problem with the way thay handled this change in policy. If it's suddenly deemed to be offensive, Immediate deletion is not a fair way of going about this. Warn people that the policy is changing. Give them a choice and give them some warning. Most of these people are aware how offensive their material is, and are willing to compromise. But they do like to be treated as adults.
Every time something like this happens you get a lot of comments along the lines of "It's their site. they can do what they want". And "Free speech doesn't apply. It's a private company". These attitudes make me a little uncomfortable.
Firstly, I think it's irelevent that legally it is SixApart's site. We're not talking about legality. Nobody is claiming that they have acted illegally, and nobody is taking legal action. What we are saying is that they're behaving asocially. Now, from a that point of view, Livejournal belongs to a whole community. The community makes LJ what it is. If all the customers left, this site would be nothing. We are all stakeholders here. As such, we have a say. More to the point while they can do what they want that doesn't mean they have any right to do so without criticism.
As for freedom of speech. I have no idea why people think that freedom of speech is only a lack of government censorship. Even worse, some think that it only applies to the US Constitution's First Amendment.
Freedom of speech is a basic fundamental right. Anyone who in any way prevents us from speaking is in some way reducing that right. The UN convention on human rights acknowledge that this is a right. The Human Rights Act, and the First Amendment also work to restrict others from reducing that right, but these are not what give us the freedom. They are guided by free speech as a principle in itself. It is a principle that is widely held on the internet, and there is a belief that community sites such as livejournal have a social responsibility to also uphold that right.
It's not about the law. Never has been. It's all about community, and being good internet citizens. If a commercial entity behaves in a manner that society deems wrong, there is no law to stop them, but as a community we still need to make sure they behave in a manner the community sees as acceptable.
Yet somehow I don't think I've addressed everything here.
Here's a summary of events
And since then LJ have realised that their users tend to get a bit upset over this, and upset users are problematic, so they relented an reviewed journals.
I have lots of confused feelings about this. This is me sorting out how I feel.
So lets see...
LJ abuse also seem to find it remarkably hard to see other people's side of the story. They refuse to reconsider their position when it's pointed out how daft it is. Last year's Nipplegate scandal showed this attitude.
If LJ have a policy that certain types of material are not permitted, then I have no problem with that. I don't even mind change their policy if they feel the need. I do have a problem with the way thay handled this change in policy. If it's suddenly deemed to be offensive, Immediate deletion is not a fair way of going about this. Warn people that the policy is changing. Give them a choice and give them some warning. Most of these people are aware how offensive their material is, and are willing to compromise. But they do like to be treated as adults.
Every time something like this happens you get a lot of comments along the lines of "It's their site. they can do what they want". And "Free speech doesn't apply. It's a private company". These attitudes make me a little uncomfortable.
Firstly, I think it's irelevent that legally it is SixApart's site. We're not talking about legality. Nobody is claiming that they have acted illegally, and nobody is taking legal action. What we are saying is that they're behaving asocially. Now, from a that point of view, Livejournal belongs to a whole community. The community makes LJ what it is. If all the customers left, this site would be nothing. We are all stakeholders here. As such, we have a say. More to the point while they can do what they want that doesn't mean they have any right to do so without criticism.
As for freedom of speech. I have no idea why people think that freedom of speech is only a lack of government censorship. Even worse, some think that it only applies to the US Constitution's First Amendment.
Freedom of speech is a basic fundamental right. Anyone who in any way prevents us from speaking is in some way reducing that right. The UN convention on human rights acknowledge that this is a right. The Human Rights Act, and the First Amendment also work to restrict others from reducing that right, but these are not what give us the freedom. They are guided by free speech as a principle in itself. It is a principle that is widely held on the internet, and there is a belief that community sites such as livejournal have a social responsibility to also uphold that right.
It's not about the law. Never has been. It's all about community, and being good internet citizens. If a commercial entity behaves in a manner that society deems wrong, there is no law to stop them, but as a community we still need to make sure they behave in a manner the community sees as acceptable.
Yet somehow I don't think I've addressed everything here.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-02 01:36 pm (UTC)Actually, it does have some relevance. There's been a lot of debate lately about whether the host of a community like this is responsible for content posted by its users - the legal consensus seems to be swinging towards "yes" (as in sites that have been hit over bullying and links to illegal downloads). I suspect 6A are a little worried about their position as owners: if they are ruled to be responsible, then failing to deal with any one guilty blog could result in their being in court.
None of which excuses the way they've handled all this of course!
BTW (and entirely off-topic), are you still thinking of organising an SF get-together in Brighton? I've got a friend who's looking to come and meet other sf'ers!
Jon
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-02 05:40 pm (UTC)I seem to have a bunch of people who might turn up. Just need to find a free weekend and choose somewhere to hold it. I need a big pub that does food.
I also want a place in Brighton that isn't packed on a Friday night which could be a lot harder to arrange. I'll try and remember to go on a hunt next week.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-02 02:17 pm (UTC)The purge was just ridiculously heavy handed. And hoplessly insensitive given the number of survivor sites it took out, way to protect people, take away thier safe space... Thinking about it, it's a good job they didn't look at tags as well or we would have lost most of the feminist comms as well. I agree to some extent that some of the fanfic sites purged did push it a bit (although, come on,
That nipplegate thing made me want to spit. Since when is breastfeeding offensive, ffs!
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-02 06:05 pm (UTC)I expect LJ to at least get the other side of the story and review the journals, but only act in such an extreme manner if it seems likely that they are doing something illegal.
Nipplegate I also have a complex opinion on. But in summary, they made the mistake of assuming that acting inconsistently is a sign of weakness rather than a sign of constant improvement, and totally failled to grasp that some people might object to objections.