lj_policy: Concerns regarding Adult Content program

theljstaff (

theljstaff) wrote in

lj_policy,
@ 2007-12-19 19:16:00

Concerns regarding Adult Content program

We wanted to address some concerns about the program put in place last month regarding adult content. This system came about due to a variety of legal, community, and industry standards. There are no punitive measures for deciding not to participate, and is designed so that logged-in users over the age of 18 should not see any change in their experience on LiveJournal. With that in mind, we would like to communicate information we have regarding some concerns.

A process for notifying authors that an individual entry has been administratively set to "Explicit" is in progress. As soon as this feature is released we will post again to let you know about it.

For users who registered before a date of birth was required, we wanted to remind you that you may enter your date of birth on the Edit Profile page. Under the heading "Birthday" it is possible to hide that information, make it publicly visible, or show it only to friends. You may also decide what format to use when showing the information (Month, Day, and Year; only Month and Day; or only Year).

We'd like to reiterate that there's no effect at all from a single user flagging another user's content. After multiple flags, the content will be reviewed. There is a system in place to make it so that flags used by someone for improper reasons (harassing another user user, working out a personal grudge, or systematically flagging content which does not fit a category) will no longer count towards the threshold for review in any category. This system has been working well thus far - we will make any adjustments needed to ensure this continues to work as intended and is not used as a tool for harassment. Part of this assessment may include changes to the internal processing or external appearance of the flagging system.

Blocked Search Terms

Some users have noted that there are certain search terms which are currently blocked from use. We can clarify the following things:

The list was created in June of this year and an update was added in late October

The blocked search terms are not related to the search filter which was put in place with the Adult Content program

The blocked search terms are not related to the recent purchase of LiveJournal and were made earlier this year, as stated above

We will continue to review the blocked terms and update or remove them as necessary; however, we will not be posting updates when we do so.

We are reviewing the system for a different solution to the problem, but will likely not announce or comment on any changes

We're sorry we can't share more information, but we wanted to address the issue to let you know we are aware of your concerns. Whenever possible, we will communicate information to you, even if it's just to say that we can't comment.

Page 1 of 5
<<	[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]	>>

(Post a new comment)

	hungerbound 2007-12-20 12:24 am UTC (link)
	A process for notifying authors that an individual entry has been administratively set to "Explicit" is in progress. As soon as this feature is released we will post again to let you know about it. Good. But it would still be nice to know how you define 'multiple' (Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

	marta 2007-12-20 01:44 am UTC (link)
	At this time we don't have a set standard for "multiple" because a) depending on different factors it may fluctuate and b) we don't want to encourage people to encourage a certain number of users to also flag something. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

	vakkotaur 2007-12-20 12:43 am UTC (link)
	This must be some new definition of "transparency." (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Question. dreadpiratekurt 2007-12-20 12:49 am UTC (link)
	I second this concern. I belong to many communities that tagging has become incredible important for finding content: recipe comms, rpgs, and others. Limiting tags needs to be lifted. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

	pyrop 2007-12-20 12:34 am UTC (link)
	It is absolutely unacceptable that you have decided not to update us on changes or replacement of the interest filtering system. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	nomadmatan 2007-12-20 05:20 am UTC (link)
	IAWTC (Reply to this) (Parent)

	asavitzk 2007-12-20 12:36 am UTC (link)
	I don't understand why you are blocking search terms in the first place. Are you moving the servers to China or something? This flys in the face of any claims of transparancy you could make now. (Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

	lnb1956 2007-12-20 12:46 pm UTC (link)
	Not to CHINA to RUSSIA! Another great democracy. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	yourradiogeek 2007-12-20 12:37 am UTC (link)
	I'm quite bothered that you're not going to be letting us know when you administer changes to the search term blockage. I mean, haven't you guys learned YET that communicating with your users is a great way to keep them ~~happy~~ not bombarding you with questions you'll probably ignore? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	marta 2007-12-20 02:11 am UTC (link)
	We can't answer those questions right now, but wanted to do something other than ignore them. I'm sorry that's the case; we will still work on removing the way it hampers searches, even if we can't comment. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

	kahlan_amnell 2007-12-20 12:38 am UTC (link)
	Could you tell us why you choose to ban some terms, but not others? Could you fix the system so it doesn't ban terms containing similar letters? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	marta 2007-12-20 01:55 am UTC (link)
	We'll be looking into the problem with substring matches on the terms but, unfortunately, can't address the reasons behind it. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

	trobadora 2007-12-20 12:59 am UTC (link)
	points at list Indeed, this post opens more questions than it answers. (Edited to fix typo) Edited at 2007-12-20 12:59 am UTC (Reply to this) (Parent)

	marta 2007-12-20 02:00 am UTC (link)
	Right now we can't lift the search blocks completely, but it's not tied into the flagging system because the areas of need for the two aren't the same. Thank you for the affirmative comment - we are reading and paying attention to what effects everyone and hope you'll see the result of that in the future, too. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

	tango 2007-12-20 01:06 am UTC (link)
	There are a couple of things that could be causing you see the adult content cuts. If you open a support request, certain volunteers can assist you in identifying the cause and pointing you to a solution. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

	alicemarkovski 2007-12-20 12:45 am UTC (link)
	Hm. Sounds good to me. (Reply to this)

	"We're sorry we can't share more information" vakkotaur 2007-12-20 12:48 am UTC (link)
	Without a real explanation it really looks like LJ is still operating under the silly assumption that "interests" and "supports" are equivalent. We are reviewing the system for a different solution to the problem What everyone is asking is, just what IS this problem? Or won't anyone know until some whistleblower has the courage to leak a memo? (Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

	yomimashou 2007-12-20 12:57 am UTC (link)
	I agree: lj-cuts were an already-existing perfect way to allow people to not look at things they might not wish to see. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

	imc 2007-12-20 02:11 am UTC (link)
	100% agreement. [Except I didn't study genocide. I studied maths.] (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

	silver_chipmunk 2007-12-20 12:58 am UTC (link)
	OK, if it's "wrong" somehow to search for certain interests, why is it possible to list those interests in the first place? It doesn't make a whole lotta' sense, guys. (Reply to this)

	toshirodragon 2007-12-20 01:00 am UTC (link)
	lifts phone, watch and CPU above head Lj, the bullshit gets any deeper here, you will start to violate city ordinances the world over! (Reply to this) (Thread)

	tjtnwo 2007-12-20 06:47 am UTC (link)
	Yep, save the important stuff, however, our shoes are a lost cause... (Reply to this) (Parent)

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs

	Re: Blocking terms, not updating users charliemc 2007-12-20 02:01 am UTC (link)
	+1 Beautifully stated. This is exactly how I feel -- and how many of my (also adult) friends feel, too. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	mickleditch 2007-12-20 11:05 am UTC (link)
	Besides if someone's swearing most kids at the age of like 13 hear all those words anyways. Most kids at the age of 10 use them. Round here they do, anyway. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	marta 2007-12-20 02:34 am UTC (link)
	No, this is definitely a situation where we can't share that information. Since we're not able to address the questions that have come up, we wanted to at least acknowledge them rather than ignore them. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

	hellebore 2007-12-20 01:23 am UTC (link)
	"# We will continue to review the blocked terms and update or remove them as necessary; however, we will not be posting updates when we do so." why and why can't you share more information. you HAVE it, why won't you give it? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	marta 2007-12-20 02:36 am UTC (link)
	Right now it's a situation where we can't share that information. But we do want to let you know we're aware of the way it inhibits searches and (if we're able) take away those problems. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

	realcdaae 2007-12-20 01:40 am UTC (link)
	This system came about due to a variety of legal, community, and industry standards. Dittoing the "such as?" others have already asked. (Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

	elfwreck 2007-12-20 06:18 pm UTC (link)
	Me too. Specifically, what "community" standards were used in setting up the flagging feature? Whose community is deciding what my kids can view on LJ? (Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…