on LJ's great apology
May. 31st, 2007 09:26 amMaybe I'll be feeling more charitible later. Or when we get
pornish_pixies back (note: the reason I cite this community isn't "oh you took away my porn" -- I never even read the community. But LJ in its apology seems to be trying to make itself the arbiter of what is art and what sort of dark art has the right attitudinal perspective. This scares the crap out of me. The restoration of something like
pornish_pixies will speak to LJ deciding not to play that game.)
http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html?thread=48986711#t48986711
http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html?thread=49067863#t49067863
http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html?thread=49085783#t49085783
http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html?thread=48986711#t48986711
http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html?thread=49067863#t49067863
http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html?thread=49085783#t49085783
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 03:59 pm (UTC)The thought of digging up my roots is bothersome to me; I've been on LJ almost five and a half years (yikes!). I really value LJ as a community, and I know that it is unlikely that I would ever be threatened by this stuff. At the same time, I am absolutely appalled by 6A/LJ's behavior. I don't know how I can continue to participate without passively condoing this crap.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 07:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-31 07:41 pm (UTC)a) make things right with users who have been branded pedophiles across the Internet
b) retract their statements about being evaluators of what is art and academic study
c) restore
d) answer my questions about where gay users stand in light of the continued phrasing about banning journals that encourage illegal sexual activity.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 04:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 05:07 am (UTC)