![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Not in the mood
Aug. 9th, 2007 11:07 amI really do not want to argue and debate right now. Sorry. I am not in a mood to disagree agreeably.
Aug. 9th, 2007
.......lj, wtf?
Aug. 9th, 2007 04:37 pmLJ proves outright that they are lying.
Why is this proof that they are lying?
Item 1 - Livejournal has said that the reason for summarily deleting accounts with objectionable content is that said content is illegal in the state of California, and as lj's servers are hosted there, lj can potentially get in legal trouble for having that content present on their servers after becoming aware of it. Therefore it's got to go, posthaste.
Item 2 - When content is linked from a journal and hosted elsewhere, and this is solely in the form of links, not embedding content, just "a href" text links, this content does not reside on lj's servers, and thus lj can not possibly in any way, shape, or form get into legal trouble for hosting it. They're not hosting it. Links are not content! I don't think there has ever, ever, ever, ever, ever been a case of somebody having legal repercussions from hosting links to content.
Item 3 - Lj has just come out and SAID, right there, go read it, that linking directly to objectionable content can get you deleted and banned, just the same as hosting that content directly on livejournal.
If you doubt that this post is genuine, an additional experiment is being conducted by the extremely reputable fen representative,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
liz_marcs, here. So we'll see. But I've maintained all along that this is not about the law. This is about lj wanting to look clean for corporate America, not lj trying to avoid lawsuits. And given that lj made this a private request within seconds suggests that there's something fishy going on here.
Edit: A lengthy list of places where lj has contradicted itself, plus links to legal actions that show what lj is doing is almost certainly not based on legal requirements, or at least not on correct understanding of US law, plus a list of books that would be banned if their content were posted on lj, but which are considered acceptable for purchase without ID by minors in the US.
Edit again: Confirmation that yes, lj has said that links to objectionable content get you banned. Comments further down point out how this is directly in violation of lj's on FAQ! Bravo, lj.
Why is this proof that they are lying?
Item 1 - Livejournal has said that the reason for summarily deleting accounts with objectionable content is that said content is illegal in the state of California, and as lj's servers are hosted there, lj can potentially get in legal trouble for having that content present on their servers after becoming aware of it. Therefore it's got to go, posthaste.
Item 2 - When content is linked from a journal and hosted elsewhere, and this is solely in the form of links, not embedding content, just "a href" text links, this content does not reside on lj's servers, and thus lj can not possibly in any way, shape, or form get into legal trouble for hosting it. They're not hosting it. Links are not content! I don't think there has ever, ever, ever, ever, ever been a case of somebody having legal repercussions from hosting links to content.
Item 3 - Lj has just come out and SAID, right there, go read it, that linking directly to objectionable content can get you deleted and banned, just the same as hosting that content directly on livejournal.
If you doubt that this post is genuine, an additional experiment is being conducted by the extremely reputable fen representative,
liz_marcs, here. So we'll see. But I've maintained all along that this is not about the law. This is about lj wanting to look clean for corporate America, not lj trying to avoid lawsuits. And given that lj made this a private request within seconds suggests that there's something fishy going on here.Edit: A lengthy list of places where lj has contradicted itself, plus links to legal actions that show what lj is doing is almost certainly not based on legal requirements, or at least not on correct understanding of US law, plus a list of books that would be banned if their content were posted on lj, but which are considered acceptable for purchase without ID by minors in the US.
Edit again: Confirmation that yes, lj has said that links to objectionable content get you banned. Comments further down point out how this is directly in violation of lj's on FAQ! Bravo, lj.
A lighter note -
Aug. 9th, 2007 08:05 pmYou scored as Luna Lovegood, You are Luna Lovegood. You daydream and often seem to be drifting off into your own world. You have very strong opinions that many agree are not logical. You place a lot of faith in these beliefs. Possibly, you see more than what meets the eye. You are very accepting of others. You may have only a few close friends because you refuse to sacrifice your opinions and true self for social graces.
Harry Potter Character Combatibility Test created with QuizFarm.com |
This surprises me not at all, actually. I like Luna. I'm not quite that kind of loony, but... dunno. Though I will say I feel more connection with movie Luna than with book Luna, who was notably more loopy. And I even look like Hermione! Though mostly in the hair. But then that is her main feature.