kutsuwamushi: (Default)
This isn't, at least in my opinion, a big deal -- but it is a little strange.

A while back I decided to track someone's LiveJournal entries with a specific tag. (I didn't add them to my friends list because I was only interested in their writing.) Recently, they started posting those entries under friends-lock. Instead of not showing up in my inbox, instead, I get a notice that I am not authorized to view the entry.

In other words, LiveJournal tells me that someone just made an entry that I don't have permission to see. It would be pretty trivial for me to figure out who and under what tag -- which I will have to do anyway if I want to stop getting these useless notices.
kutsuwamushi: (Default)
LJ is now displaying ads from the National Organization for Restricting Marriage to Only Certain People.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not assuming that LiveJournal made the choice to air this pro-discrimination ad or that it's their fault (like the person who discovered the ad), although I'll be interested to see if the current management is responsive to complaints. It's probable that the ad made its way onto one of the ad services that LiveJournal uses without anyone realizing it.

My issue is that I only know an ad like this could be appearing on my content because someone posted about it and it got linked. I'm a basic user, which means that there are ads on my journal, but that logged-in basic and paid users don't see them. Everyone else does.

I could change to being a plus user, but I am irritated enough at LiveJournal's decisions regarding advertising that I don't want to - and anyway, I would only end up ad-blocking the damn things anyway.

The no-advertising business plan is the main reason I'm drawn to Dreamwidth, by the way, followed shortly by the we're-not-bigots company policy.

Edit: LiveJournal has responded and says that they are tracking down the ad so that they can remove it.
kutsuwamushi: (Default)
Having been the target of wank on JF, I certainly wouldn't go there.
JournalFen is not Fandom Wank. Most people reading my journal probably know this, but I feel like repeating it until it’s absolutely clear. I hate to see JournalFen’s reputation suffer just because they have strong opinions on free speech.

Administrators like that are ones we want, right?

The administrators of JournalFen stand up for Fandom Wank’s right to exist despite the trouble it causes them: server outages, outraged abuse reports, and of course the mistaken idea that they must em support Fandom Wank simply because they haven’t given it the boot. Even if I hated Fandom Wank, I would respect them for that.

The person I quoted went on to say that when Fandom Wank made “posts and defamatory comments over something deliberately taken out of context from my LJ,” she reported them to Abuse and JournalFen refused to do anything about it. That, in her mind, makes JournalFen a bad place. A place of wank.

I don’t remember her. Maybe Fandom Wank really was unfair, because that happens--has even happened to me. But being unfair, quoting someone out of context and mocking them, isn’t illegal*, although it may be distasteful. It’s still a matter of free speech, and JournalFen has taken the stance that free speech is important to them. That means continuing to host stuff that many people don’t like.

Guess what else a lot of people don’t like? Underaged Harry Potter porn.

* Except in specific circumstances which I don’t believe Fandom Wank often meets. I highly doubt this person was “defamed” in any legal sense.


kutsuwamushi: (Default)

September 2017

101112131415 16


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 04:16 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios