In the past we've had trolls post other people's AIDS status to mock them and have no action taken, while people who post public information have been terminated. (Not just me, it's happened several times.)
It's basically up to the (anonymous) person handling each complaint to decide whether they feel like doing something or not. And once the decision is made, the apparent First Commandment is "never admit a mistake". Hence there's no consistency at all in LJ TOS enforcement.
None of this is news, and nobody should have been surprised by LJ's actions. I guess everyone was just assuming that the Abuse team's asshattedness wouldn't affect *their* journals.
LJ Abuse decisions have always been capricious and inconsistent. Why did you expect them to behave any differently in response to the complaints from "Warriors for Innocence"?
Because maybe more than child abuse communities and pedophiles can threaten minors? Look, no one is arguing with you that LJ Abuse has been arbitrary in the past (in my experience, they haven't).
But I'm done here. Your first response to me was hostile, and I don't reward that. Change your tone of voice and quit trying to pick a fight with me, and I will discuss this with you. If not, have a nice life.
Could you elaborate on what part of my first response you thought was hostile to you? The only thing I can think of is that (a) you are upset at my incredulity over your being surprised by yet another LJ Abuse debacle, or (b) you're upset by the suggestion that you were assuming it wouldn't happen to you.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 04:15 am (UTC)It's basically up to the (anonymous) person handling each complaint to decide whether they feel like doing something or not. And once the decision is made, the apparent First Commandment is "never admit a mistake". Hence there's no consistency at all in LJ TOS enforcement.
None of this is news, and nobody should have been surprised by LJ's actions. I guess everyone was just assuming that the Abuse team's asshattedness wouldn't affect *their* journals.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 04:41 am (UTC)Way to totally miss the point of my comment there, but whatever.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 03:58 pm (UTC)LJ Abuse decisions have always been capricious and inconsistent. Why did you expect them to behave any differently in response to the complaints from "Warriors for Innocence"?
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 08:19 pm (UTC)But I'm done here. Your first response to me was hostile, and I don't reward that. Change your tone of voice and quit trying to pick a fight with me, and I will discuss this with you. If not, have a nice life.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 10:12 pm (UTC)