Boldthrough - and the art of law.

[dhae_knight_1]

Okay, so... it just occurred to me why I'm leaving LJ ASAP (yes, I'm slow that way).

Seriously, I haven't realized this before, just had this creeping, crawling feeling all the way up and down my spine whenever I thought about it.

The lack of a clear-cut ToS at LJ right now, can be compared to a country in which the law is vague at best - but where the police has a whole different set of laws - secret laws - that they can enforce at will. If you are the first one to break a particular law (even if it's not one of the vague, publicized laws), you would have no way of knowing that  it could land you in prison for 25 to life.

The first thing you would know about it, was when the police came knocking, cuffed you, and dragged you out on your ass - in the dead of night, 'cause that way, it wouldn't upset the neighbors.

Seriously - it sounds extreme - but that's the way I'm feeling about LJ right now. If they won't tell me what they consider 'illegal' (i.e. bannable) - and will continue to ban users - completely contrary to their own publicized ToS - and will continue to stonewall requests for an explanation from the accused (i.e. the banned user)... well, frankly, that's not a place I want to be. A lot of people have no problem with that - and that's fine. Me, personally? I don't fancy living in a dictatorship - even if it is driven by the forces of commerce...

The very least the dictator could do was make it clear and public what rules he expects his subjects to... well, subject to.

Comments

[psychedk.livejournal.com]

I get your point, although I must say that forums, boards, and the likes, are not democratic and have never been, and ever will be. They are a dictatorship in she sense that it's run solely by the creator. You either appreciate that or you don't.

I thought LJ explained pretty well about their rules. After their huge blunder, of course. For example that the things in the bio thread were meant to be things you liked, supported, etc, and not just subjects you were interested in discussing (so that a term like child abuse could be misunderstood as though you supported it, and not just that it was a subject you felt strongly about and would debate any time). But, I did read their news blogs and they described up and down what had caused them to overreact, and they apologized a lot too.

Like I said, as far as I know, the people in the House fandom who was affected, have gotten their accounts back, and I haven't heard of anyone leaving (I might be wrong, I don't know everyone, I've just not seen any public talk of it).

[psychedk.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I forgot to add, I know people in the HP fandom too, and my friends there haven't mentioned anything about leaving or even being affected by it. Your friends must have had bad luck :(

[dhae_knight_1]

The thing is: I don't even have any personal friends affected by this. Heck, I don't even have much of a fandom that's affected by this. The thing that really, really bugs me, is that this time around (to be honest - it took a bloody awful long time for LJ to clarify last time, too), LJ doesn't even seem to agree with themselves what is bannable.

Let's be clear on this - I don't say LJ should be a democracy. I'm saying that I would greatly appreciate being told what the rules are before I get punished for breaking them. We don't even do that to children. Latest, greatest news from LJ is that one LJ employee says that to link to bannable content (this works retroactively, too - that is every link you've ever made could potentially get you banned) is a bannable offense. LJ's own ToS states clearly that it cannot be LJ's responsibility what is placed on other servers - and it is thus, not a bannable offense. You can get warned to remove content (you can always get warned to remove content), but you won't be banned without a warning.

But, like I say: if people don't (and most people don't seem to) have a problem with not knowing what the rules are they're supposed to live by - especially when LJ apparently has no problem banning people for life, and when LJ apparently has no interest in listening to the complaints of these customers they just banned - well, then I have no problem with that.

I don't want to. It would be like... if I bought Windows - and suddenly, one day, it stopped working. I couldn't get an answer from Microsoft - and when they do get around to it, they say it's cause I installed Firefox. Or maybe because I wrote Microsoft sucks in a mail. At any rate, I'm not the kind of person they want to run their operating system. And, you know, I go WTF, and then: at least give me back my money so I can buy a different operating system - but, no... I've paid Microsoft, and it's non-refundable. It's my own fault I've broken Microsoft's rules...

And I know I rant and rant about this - but dammit! These are customers and LJ is selling a service, and I don't see how that differs from what I would expect when I buy something in my local supermarket!

[psychedk.livejournal.com]

I don't want to. It would be like... if I bought Windows - and suddenly, one day, it stopped working. I couldn't get an answer from Microsoft - and when they do get around to it, they say it's cause I installed Firefox. Or maybe because I wrote Microsoft sucks in a mail.

LOL I can't count the number of times my Windows should have stopped working :D

Latest, greatest news from LJ is that one LJ employee says that to link to bannable content (this works retroactively, too - that is every link you've ever made could potentially get you banned) is a bannable offense. LJ's own ToS states clearly that it cannot be LJ's responsibility what is placed on other servers - and it is thus, not a bannable offense.

Well that is certainly very contradictive *G* When have they said this? Recently?

I was upset too, when it was going on. But I did see LJ admit that hey hadn't been clear in their TOS, and that they had acted prematurely, and was contacting all the people they had wrongfully banned, which was about half of all the accounts they had banned, to talk to them about whatever had caused the ban. I did see them say "Yes, we messed up." Therefore I can't be upset anymore.

And I'm not paying for LJ anyway (nor would I ever want to, especially after this), so I don't expect more than what I would from any other free service. I just use it as much as I can for my own benefit *shrugs*

Again, sorry to see you go, but I understand your anger. I just personally feel that it's over and done with.

[dhae_knight_1]

I keep getting the feel that you're talking Strikethrough - which was bad enough, in and of itself. But Boldthrough (we should really thank LJ for giving us a nice new name for each problem... ;-)) started august 3rd.

Yes, Strikethrough was resolved - eventually.

For a complete list of contradictory things LJ has said and done, check out this post. There are a lot! Some more serious than others.

And, yeah, I get the whole free-thing - but that doesn't mean I want to risk having my journal wiped out if LJ suddenly, and arbitrarily, decides I'm not the 'right kind of person'. To me, part of the point is that the two banned users had paid for their journals. You'd think that entitled them to a decent treatment...

[psychedk.livejournal.com]

Ah okay, I didn't know they were two different things... I haven't heard about the Boldthrough at all, then. No one in the House community have been affected, apparently. My HP friend haven't mentioned it either :/ I couldn't figure out why you'd chose to leave now, since the strikethrough was a longish time ago! But it makes sense now.. Except I don't know what happened on August 3rd except it was a continuation of the Strikethrough?

Sorry about the confusion.

I'll look at the post you linked to later when I'm home.

[dhae_knight_1]

Strikethrough was a suspension of users based on their interests. Boldthrough is a banning of users based on artwork (one piece of artwork a head), on august 3rd.

The problem with boldthrough is (as you'll see, when you take a closer look at the link) that people have been asking LJ since Strikethrough, what is deemed unacceptable by LJ's standards.

Now, I'd have no problems if LJ decided that they don't want fandom or parts of fandom on their site - but for God's sake, couldn't they tell us?