It's so ridiculous. Don't we have better things to worry about than whether a fictional seventeen-year-old is having fictional sex for unknown reasons?
I don't blame LJ at all for taking it seriously. I'm much more upset about their poor customer service - how hard is it to set clearer guidelines and then stick to them? The TOS isn't very clear, and the clarifications in ljbiz and news aren't very clear either. If they had just said "no sexually explicit art with under-18s involved" back in May, when people were asking for clarifications like that, we'd be fine. But instead it's been months of waffle like "Well, some explicit material is allowed, within certain guidelines of taste and artistic merit and trying not to be illegal, so, um, try not to step over the invisible boundaries." And while they have the right to delete with no warning, it would be better policy to, say, delete the offending entry and warn the user rather than permabanning the user from LJ for ever with no warning. That's just dumb.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-12 11:25 pm (UTC)I don't blame LJ at all for taking it seriously. I'm much more upset about their poor customer service - how hard is it to set clearer guidelines and then stick to them? The TOS isn't very clear, and the clarifications in ljbiz and news aren't very clear either. If they had just said "no sexually explicit art with under-18s involved" back in May, when people were asking for clarifications like that, we'd be fine. But instead it's been months of waffle like "Well, some explicit material is allowed, within certain guidelines of taste and artistic merit and trying not to be illegal, so, um, try not to step over the invisible boundaries." And while they have the right to delete with no warning, it would be better policy to, say, delete the offending entry and warn the user rather than permabanning the user from LJ for ever with no warning. That's just dumb.