Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Beginning the conversation
Carved logo
theljstaff wrote in lj_policy
As we're sure you remember, one of the goals LiveJournal, Inc. set last year was to review and post new policy guidelines in our 100 day plan.

We know you've all been waiting a long time for this to happen, and today, we're taking an important step in accomplishing this goal. We've reviewed, clarified, and posted a draft set of policies, and we'd like you to take a look at them here!

We also want to emphasize that this is a proposed set of policies. We've created these proposed policies as a starting point for constructive debate, as we feel that it is crucial to get input from you and LiveJournal's new Advisory Board.

For those of you wanting to compare this to the previous policy document, it's still up here. We have updated policies in a number of areas which have generated interest from users, particularly on non-photographic images of minors, harassment, inappropriate content, and hate speech.

With that said, we'd like to invite you to read and review these policies, and comment with your thoughts. In particular, we want to hear which policies you think should change (or are missing entirely), how you would like to see them changed, and your reasoning as to why you believe it would be a better solution for LiveJournal.

We will complete this consultation process by the end of May.

It was about time things would be more strict concerning child porn and harassment.
Thank you for this.

"Child porn" has always been strongly against the rules. What was up for debate was what "child porn" actually was.

When adult content flagging was introduced, I was under the impression that it was not mandatory. I'm dismayed to see that this policy requires graphic adult content to be flagged.

It isn't mandatory in that there is no negative repercussion for not marking it as such. If it's flagged enough times and is reviewed, the only thing that might happen is that it has an "Explicit" setting administratively set.

(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
To save time of many users looking at this, from the definition linked from the document regarding what is and is not child pornography:

This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.

Can we get a clear statement that written stories do not fall under "Any photograph, video, or other similar content" in the definition of child pornography? I know that hp_hardcore would be disappointed if plain text qualified as child pornography...

Written stories are not images, and would not fall under this policy.

(Deleted comment)
Looks great! Thanks for all the hard work y'all put into it.

Obscene Non-Default User Picture
Last updated: November 4th, 2004

User is using an objectionable non-default userpic.

No action required.

We don't feel it's our business to restrict what user pictures someone uses in areas which can't be reached randomly; if someone finds another user's non-default user pictures offensive, they can simply choose to avoid that user's journal.

I have never viewed this one, and didn't know it was ever there, and am glad it is.

Edited at 2008-03-08 07:02 am (UTC)

There is the problem of that user using that userpic in other journals, though, including communities. Maybe there should be a restriction on using those pics outside the person's own journal, or just in communities. Userpics could then be voluntarily or administratively flagged as "explicit" or "offensive", and those userpics could only be used within the specific journal where they're created, or only within journals and not communities. It might be too restrictive, but the only alternative I can think of is for journal owners and community mods to ban people who use offensive icons... which is even more restrictive. They could even go so far as to allow journal owners or communities to specifically set "allow userpics marked as 'offensive'" and people would know to avoid those journals if they're afraid to risk seeing something they don't want to see in a userpic.

In short, choosing to avoid one user's journal doesn't help when that user is posting in other places, so the "explanation" part of this policy is unfortunately incorrect. I think it needs new justification, if nothing else.

1. Non-Photographic images of minors: how will you determine if a drawing is a minor or not, and who decides it? Does the abuse team just know it when they see it?

At least you're not pretending it's illegal anymore.

2. Since it's not mentioned anywhere, are we to assume that fiction that may push the age limit is 100% allowed?

Edited at 2008-03-08 07:04 am (UTC)

I believe markf addressed #2 above: Written stories are not images, so this policy does not apply to them.

(Deleted comment)
This sounds relatively reasonable overall, especially the Standard Compliance Timeline.

Where's the catch?

LJ do something good and you just assume something bad is around the corner? Stop being so cynical.

In "Illegal content", am I understanding correctly that it would be against the policy's terms to advocate jaywalking as a safer way of crossing the street? Many pedestrian advocacy groups point out that jaywalking in the middle of the block can, in many circumstances, expose you to threats from only two directions and not three or four.

I love that, in the middle of the fandom flailing, you're talking about jaywalking. I love it with drawings of jello of dubiously legal age, even.

(Deleted comment)
Regarding the 'Ban Evasion', so that the person cannot use an alternate lj to rejoin the community from which they were banned, add a feature which will allow community moderators to ban the IP so rejoining is impossible in communities with or without open membership.

I've seen many instances where people have multiple lj's and troll. They're banned and back in a few minutes with a journal they've previously set up or a new account they've created.

Allow banning of the IP for a permanent cure.

(Deleted comment)
Users who have posted non-photographic images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct will be required to remove the material, following the Standard Compliance Timeline.


We are not making any determination on the legality of non-photographic images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This is simply a type of content LiveJournal has decided not to host.

How will LJ be determining whether the people in these images are minors?

Probably by going on what the person posted.

I'm happy about the Standard Compliance Timeline. Thanks for being reasonable, at long last.

That's been policy since at least 2001.