?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Share Next Entry
Welcome
Carved logo
theljstaff wrote in lj_policy
Welcome to lj_policy!

We're glad you're here. This community will be used to gather your opinions about social and community policy.

We understand that there is a lot to absorb and process right now with the creation of LiveJournal, Inc. Since this is a transition for all of us, we want to initiate a dialogue with you, the users. We feel it is very important to hear your concerns before we release any changes to current policies, and we want to start this process right away.

As a starting point, we don't want to just guess what's important to you; we want to hear about it directly from you. Please take a moment to answer the questions below:


1) What is your greatest concern about LiveJournal's current policies?

2) Regarding your primary concern, are you aware of a site that handles that issue in a way that you like?

This is just a starting point to get your initial ideas. We know you have a lot more where these come from, and in the coming days and weeks we will make sure you have a chance to voice your opinions. We look forward to your comments.


  • 1
These are all questions that need to be reviewed. And as we've mentioned it's a priority, so much so we've made room and dedicated a community to policy. We encourage you to join/follow the community. Give input and help make this a home that's comfortable for the wide audience but yet respects the boundaries.

I certainly can't promise your questions will be answered right away, or that a policies will be defined and locked down in a matter of weeks. Given the complexity, it's going to take time.

But at least you'll be able to see what we're working on, as well as what other lj users are asking for.

Thanks again for your questions.
I hope that helps.

Re: from Rachel LJ Staff

In what universe is treating me as a human being with equal rights to dignity something that needs to be _reviewed_ because I'm *gasp* female and *gasp* not heterosexual? Oh right, the LJ universe.

I am utterly infuriated.

Re: from Rachel LJ Staff

Or Russia, which doesn't offer much protection to either group. Gotta love an old fashioned patriarchy.

Re: from Rachel LJ Staff

Actually, it doesn't.

Elfwreck's point (That LJ, as a California Corporation, has probably has a different standard of care from the one it professes) is topical.

RM's questions (why isn't orientation explicity protected (which has real import, now that the flagging policy exists, as well as how the new policies affect those who post creative works on LJ) also need more definitive answers than, Trust Us.

TK

Re: from Rachel LJ Staff

Honestly, I don't see the complexity of expanding the existing rules on hate speech to incorporate a few more legally recognized and quite honestly common sense categories.

What exactly is the objection or hesitation in make the decision to expanding the hate speech list? Is there a specific category that causes legal distress? what exactly is the complexity? If a governing body of the state of California can work within the legal system of the United States and come up with a reasonable definition of hate speech ( and that's not an easy task by any means ) how can a simple corporate entity claim that it's too complex?

If you are not going to directly answer yes or no to expanding the hate speech list, then at least directly and clearly show why it is complex, and exactly what process is involved.

We have clearly heard what can not be done, what is not going to happen, and that the process is difficult - so now the question becomes what are you going to do , what steps will be taken, and in what time frame can we expect a result?

I am aware of the size of the task involved in policing a public service on the Internet, and I have nothing but empathy for the difficulty of the decisions before you, however decisions have to be made, and actions must be taken. Waffling is simply not an option if you expect any form of customer retention during or after transition.

my guess about the hate speech description

IANAL. This is only a guess.

I would suppose they thought that the complete list was confusing and unnecessary--that since hate speech is illegal in CA, and it's already covered in the TOS that illegal speech is, duh, forbidden on LJ, they don't need to exactly define that.

But people were wondering what "hate speech" was, because it's so easy for people with little awareness of legal terminology to think that it means "speech that is hateful"--certainly a reasonable understanding of the term. LJ got too many reports of "hate speech" that were just "my ex is calling me vile names," and needed to clarify that they meant the legal term hate speech.

So they gave a definition of that. A condensed one, so's not to confuse us poor, muddle-headed users.

An inaccurate one that, depending on the lawyers involved, could potentially get them in trouble for failing to uphold California law in their California business.

But mainly, I think they were once again trying to simplify a complex issue, and botched it.

Re: my guess about the hate speech description

I concurr that this is a decent possibility, but as it compounds ongoing issues it is, at minimum, rude and merits an apology to go with an immediate correction. More nefariously, it implies bigotry, a disregard for the law and an implication of just who is and isn't welcome here, no matter what rachel says.

Re: my guess about the hate speech description

I agree.

Having met a few staffish people, and chatted at length with marta, I decided that there is, as they claim, no homophobia on staff or in the volunteer APT team--that there is no anti-gay agenda there.

However, there is an anti-gay agenda influencing a lot of American business decisions... and staff & the APT are both affected by that. There's a lot of anti-gay sentiment in corporate advertising.

And if LJ/SUP wants its users to believe it's not catering to those interests, it needs to make its policies a great deal more transparent, and indicate which ones are entirely derived from laws (no matter how much or little they explain those laws) and which ones are LJ's own policies, which it would be enforcing even if no laws supported them.

Re: from Rachel LJ Staff

We're asking about disallowing hate speech of real people in any form, in order for you to comply with some law in Cali. that's already been stated.

What's to review?

  • 1