Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Update on Adult Flagging and other policy items
Carved logo
theljstaff wrote in lj_policy
Thank you all for your feedback regarding the adult content flagging system. There are several concerns we have seen raised repeatedly, and we want you all to know that we are taking these concerns seriously.

There was a problem with the display of content on the RSS feeds for content marked as "Explicit Adult Content" or "Adult Concepts." This was a bug, and has since been fixed. Thank you to those of you who brought this to our attention.

Based upon your feedback, the search settings for all users over the age of 18 will be set to not filter any content. This change will happen on the next code release. Please note that this is for existing journals only – new accounts will be set to Moderate Filtering, but will be able to manually change that setting.

There are some things we are working on that we do not have solutions for at this time. We realize that the lack of notification when an entry has been administratively set to "Explicit Adult Content" is a problem, and we are working on implementing a way to notify you in this situation. We also feel it is important that content which has been set as containing "Explicit Adult Content", or "Adult Concepts" clearly indicate that this is the case.

For those who see the adult content lj-cut, we realize they may not see the lj-cut intended by the author of the post. This is something for which we do not have an immediate solution. We will continue to look at this problem, and are open to any suggestions you might have.

Additionally, we are determining what the best option available is for users who initially entered an incorrect date of birth. As a temporary solution, anyone who is experiencing this problem can contact coppa@livejournal.com with their username and a copy of any government issued identification which includes a date of birth.

Some of you have pointed out that our Abuse report form does not properly indicate that our Hate Speech policies apply to members of any sex, gender, or sexual orientation. We assure you this is simply an oversight in the text on this page; the Abuse Prevention Team's Hate Speech policy has, and will continue to apply to these groups.

Many of the things mentioned in this entry are still being worked on, and will not be live on the site immediately. However, we feel it is important to give you an update on our plans to resolve these outstanding issues, and welcome any additional feedback you may have on how to further improve the adult content flagging system.

that's ridiculous. I am totally opposed to pro-active preventative measures like banning any searches of "fag" or "spic". That's just so ridiculous... and they better not infringe on my right to use that language in my own personal journal either!

(Deleted comment)
I'd like to be able to shut off this feature altogether. I'm 25 and nothing really offends me.. if it's child porn or something I'll just file an abuse report.

Agreed. And there's no reason that the default for new users over 18 shouldn't also be no filtering.

Edited at 2007-12-08 01:26 am (UTC)

Has there been anything determined regarding the fact that communities marked "adult content" redirect to the community management page rather than the community itself when someone clicks on the verification link?

Thank you for working out a system of notification.

Yup, this will be fixed next code release (which is next week).

Thank you for listening to your users concerns. Notification about flagged entries is a very important thing and I'm glad to see you guys are willing to implement that.

Are we going to get some clarification about the "taste, decency, religious, and political concerns" addressed in the lj_2008 post? Not many people know about that post, but everyone I've sent a link to has been completely outraged. That's something you really need to fix. We don't want to be told our politics can't be expressed on LJ.

ETA: Looks like there's a new post in lj_2008. It eases my mind somewhat, but not completely. You mentioned freedom of expression for religion, but not for politics or taste and decency. As long as my taste isn't illegal (ie child porn) it should not be under question.

Edited at 2007-12-08 01:34 am (UTC)

I'm sorry for all the replies - I must have screwed up my formatting. But, yes, you are correct and keeping the freedom of expression regardless of differing tastes of politics, taste, and decency is the goal.

Edited at 2007-12-08 01:37 am (UTC)

suggestion: hire a user interface team

/signoff

Based upon your feedback, the search settings for all users over the age of 18 will be set to not filter any content. This change will happen on the next code release.
Awesome.

Please note that this is for existing journals only – new accounts will be set to Moderate Filtering, but will be able to manually change that setting.
I understand that there are probably technical reasons for that, but it might be something you want to point out in the...I don't remember what happens when you first register. What I mean is they should know it's there.

Thanks for the feedback.

It's just too much policing.

(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
Last I checked, religion is already on the list. Those are the things they left out.

Hate Speech doesn't include gender identity and expression?

So hating transsexuals is OK?

Thanks for pointing that out. That's unacceptable.

(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
Maybe if you had clear policies people would realize what applied. I've been willing to give LJ the benefit of the doubt before but all of this is just sickening.

the Abuse Prevention Team's Hate Speech policy has, and will continue to apply to these groups.

Then that needs to be addressed in the Abuse report form. Fix it. Don't just say, "Hey, we know about it!"

It's big, it's important, and until you do get the Abuse report form changed, you're saying those groups don't matter.

That copy change has gone in and will be updated in the next code release.

(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
This is off-topic and totally not as important as all the other things being mentioned, but I personally would love it if official LJ communities would refrain from using customized comment pages.

For what it's worth, I agree.

(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
I absolutely agree with dr_pufferfish. There is absolutely NO REASON someone else should be able to flag an entry on MY LiveJournal, and vice versa. If I don't like the content of someone's journal, I don't read their journal -- why is this such a foreign concept?

You people seriously need to embrace the concept of personal responsibility and stop pandering to the "save the children" nitwits. If those people put half the time they spend on trying to censor the world into actually PARENTING THEIR OWN CHILDREN... well, that will never happen.

(Gosh almighty, I hope referring to that group as "nitwits" and "those people" doesn't qualify as hate speech!)

Some of you have pointed out that our Abuse report form does not properly indicate that our Hate Speech policies apply to members of any sex, gender, or sexual orientation. We assure you this is simply an oversight in the text on this page; the Abuse Prevention Team's Hate Speech policy has, and will continue to apply to these groups.

You're meaning to tell us, after all you have put us through in the last year, that we should trust your abuse team just through your reassurance? We need RESULTS before you can even think your userbase will trust you. We are not beaten spouses who blindly keep coming back because we love you. We are not like users of myspace or other social networks.

You obviously haven't learned a damn thing since this whole thing started.

?

Log in

No account? Create an account