LJ flags another comm as 'Explicit Adult Content'

[charmian]

LJ forces a comm to declare itself Explicit Adult Content, then after complaints from the comm owners, changes it to Adult Concepts.

http://ineptshieldmaid.dreamwidth.org/192601.html

While I don't really approve of LJ's policy, although I do acknowledge they are within their rights to have such a policy, I'm confused as to why anyone is surprised by this. This has been LJ's stated policy for a long time (possibly ever since the flag was introduced?), and just a while ago, the exact same thing happened to fanficrants.

And, although people are referencing the ToS, the FAQs clearly state that this is the policy:

http://www.livejournal.com/support/faqbrowse.bml?faqid=281
http://www.livejournal.com/support/faqbrowse.bml?faqid=196

Comments

[azurelunatic]

I just used myself as a test case, and one can still manually set the content level of an individual entry to specify not-adult, even when the journal as a whole is explicit. Though that was me setting my own settings, rather than having the settings of my whole journal set for me. I did get a great big scare-label on my journal before I could even see anything, not even the sole entry that I'd specified was totally safe.

The places where this hits hardest is communities where all content is locked, because then one cannot log out and see stuff.

I have a chart:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AhtWr7PvrMa4dEM3a2NzUC1xXzl5LUpQaGlEQWY5UEE&hl=en

It doesn't (yet) address whole-comm flagging from Abuse.

[charmian]

Nice chart!

That's some good information to know.

Yeah, this probably does hit hardest the communities where all content is locked. LJ and its users have a big conflict: LJ has essentially made it against the rules for under 18s to view explicit content, and many comm owners don't agree with this. (So what happens if someone is under eighteen and they flag their own journal explicit adult content?)

[azurelunatic]

Someone under 18 who flags their own journal can still see their own journal, but none of their other under-18 friends can see this.

This has, in the past, led to some *epic* hard feelings.

[charmian]

Whoa, really? Why would they even do that? Though, if I knew a website imposed such restrictions, and I were under eighteen, no way would I bother to give my real birth date, since there is no way for them to find out without me telling them.

[azurelunatic]

I have no idea why a user would do that either; perhaps if they felt that they would get in trouble for posting "adult content" type stuff without using the flag. I know there was a lot of paranoia going around in the post-strikethrough era.

[charmian]

It seems in that situation the users ought to work it out amongst themselves how the content should be presented. I have to say, though, SUP appears to be much more liberal than 6A regarding content, since incidents like Strikethrough seem to have markedly decreased (incidents like strikethrough=objectionable/obscene content)

[azurelunatic]

Since Strikethrough, there's also been adult content flagging developed. And there was just a bit ago a kerfuffle with certain comms being turned all adults-only without the knowledge of the maintainers. Unsurprising to me, since the FAQs have been clear about that since forever, but apparently very surprising to the rest of fandom.

[charmian]

Oh yeah. What is it with it being a surprise to people if there were FAQs made about it? Shouldn't they have announced these policy changes somewhere so that people could learn about them?

[azurelunatic]

I am, er.

In this case, the policy dates back to when the feature was introduced, as far as I know, and while I am not 100% positive, I have the inkling that it was in fact mentioned when the feature was rolled out, and ... this is not quite on the same level as "surprised water is wet; surprised fire is hot", and I had not thought that it was obscure enough to be "surprised that the user-head links to the profile".

[charmian]

I see a lot of people in discussions citing ToS and claiming that it says that LJ has an obligation to alert people to any changes LJ has made in the flagging. Perhaps what they should do is alter the ToS, then, to make it clearer.

[matgb]

I have a different suggestion for why. The same reason some people have a friends only journal, that restricts comments to friends only, and have a 'comment to be added' post that doesn't override normal journal rules.

I'd blame the LJ UI, but sometimes even the best UI can't stop people doing that sort of thing.

[azurelunatic]

Not just a box of rocks, but a box of hand-picked Dendarii hill rocks.