Brad Fitzpatrick ([info]bradfitz) wrote in [info]lj_support,
@ 2006-04-20 13:35:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:miscellaneous announcement, policy

TOS Change --- whoops
Regarding the TOS change to ban ad blocking software:

Totally our bad.

We didn't catch that the ad-blocker restriction made it into the final TOS changes. From what I can make of the series of events which led to its inclusion was that we basically passed off our TOS to some lawyers and said, "Update it for advertising". They then mimiced some other sites' advertising policies (which said no ad blockers), and then all the right people who were supposed to review it didn't and it made it live onto the site.

So this is a pre-announcement that a more user-friendly TOS change is on its way.

(After all, we can't even detect that you're even using ad blockers to begin with, so there's no point in us saying you can't. Plus you might not even have control over what's installed on your computer, etc.)

So, yeah, sorry: we messed up.


Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]coffeechica
2006-04-20 09:00 pm UTC (link)
I am very relieved to hear this. Thank you.

(Reply to this)


[info]patrick
2006-04-20 09:02 pm UTC (link)
oops!

(Reply to this)


[info]mollyblack
2006-04-20 09:05 pm UTC (link)
I have a permanent account for my main account and two communities and one no longer used, but kept for the sake of if I want to (and thus three free, I guess), and my husband has a paid account.

I have to admit I felt peeved that advertising was starting, but not that peeved since hey, I've pitched in money and continue to do so in the two main journals that matter. But it did feel a little like a kick when you're doing all these very "rich" sounding things and you had mentioned (or news or what have you) that you wanted to stay away from banner ads.

Thanks for fixing the TOS. It's little touches like that that matter to the faithful, I think.

(Reply to this)


[info]valiskeogh
2006-04-20 09:06 pm UTC (link)
GOOD, my bradfaith has been restored.

good show, now go back to whatever madness you were starting

(Reply to this)


[info]jc
2006-04-20 09:12 pm UTC (link)
Uh, this needs to be repeated in [info]news.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]feignedapathy
2006-04-20 09:19 pm UTC (link)
Read the post carefully, a formal announcement is coming soon.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)
(no subject) - [info]jc, 2006-04-20 09:21 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]jamesd
2006-04-20 09:13 pm UTC (link)
Good to hear. Late catch beats no catch.

(Reply to this)


[info]sqrfruit
2006-04-20 09:15 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for clearing that up. I had actually turned off my ad-blocker to see what the ads looked like, and still couldn't see ads when I was logged out. I don't yet know what's blocking them.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]fweebles
2006-04-20 10:36 pm UTC (link)
Where are you looking?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)
(no subject) - [info]sqrfruit, 2006-04-20 11:08 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]fweebles, 2006-04-20 11:49 pm UTC (Expand)
Thank you!!!!
[info]hyperverbal777
2006-04-20 09:16 pm UTC (link)
Thank you for being upfront and honest and not covering it up with BS like some people and places!!!!!

(Reply to this)


[info]ms_manna
2006-04-20 09:18 pm UTC (link)
That's the thing about lawyers -- they're all kleptomanics when it comes to writing contracts. Given a free rein, they will try and lay claim absolutely everything, up to and including the air in people's lungs and the photons hitting their retinas.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]redbird
2006-04-20 09:26 pm UTC (link)
If you can't trust your lawyers to do what you want, it's time to fire them and get new lawyers.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)
(no subject) - [info]azurelunatic, 2006-04-20 11:19 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]musepoetique
2006-04-20 09:20 pm UTC (link)
It's alright. Screwup happens. ^_^

(Reply to this)


[info]decklin
2006-04-20 09:28 pm UTC (link)
Thanks.

(Reply to this)


[info]hopefulnebula
2006-04-20 09:29 pm UTC (link)
Will we have to re-agree to the new ToS, like we did when 6A bought LJ?

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

[info]burr86
2006-04-20 09:35 pm UTC (link)
We never had to agree to the TOS change back then. (It was talked about, but never done.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)
(no subject) - [info]hopefulnebula, 2006-04-20 09:37 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]bride, 2006-04-21 02:30 am UTC (Expand)

[info]glitterbats
2006-04-20 09:30 pm UTC (link)
Chiming in on the "What a relief," choir, here. I will admit, the 'no ad-blockers' part was worrisome, because like you said not everyone has control over what's installed on their computer. Glad to see that you're being up-front about the mix-up. It's little things like this that keep my faith in Livejournal alive.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Principle
[info]omnifarious
2006-04-20 11:16 pm UTC (link)

My guiding principle in these things is that business can tell you how you can interact with them, but none of them can tell you what to think, believe, or what software you should be running on your computer. I think all of those things belong in the same category. Your computer is yours and it should be an extension of your will into the net. Trying to force you to run (or not run) certain software on it is evil and wrong.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]erin
2006-04-20 09:30 pm UTC (link)
As long as it was Brad making the official announcement, this post could say that the LiveJournal staff is going to start killing puppies, stuffing them with bleach, and feeding the bleached puppies to newborn kittens and still 95% of the responses would be "Hey, no problem! ♥!"

Not that this isn't a good change. I'm just sayin'.

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

[info]dabroots
2006-04-21 12:07 am UTC (link)
Erin, I'm not trying to be difficult, but the Support Board that I'm referred to does not work for me. I get an error message saying I'm putting in the wrong password, which is just not the case. How am I ever, EVER going to get an answer to the problem I describe in the note below if not by trying to circumvent this system?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)
(no subject) - [info]erin, 2006-04-21 12:11 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]dabroots, 2006-04-21 02:05 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]erin, 2006-04-21 02:12 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]ratofthelab, 2006-04-21 12:20 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]erin, 2006-04-21 12:22 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]ratofthelab, 2006-04-21 01:03 am UTC (Expand)

[info]dabroots
2006-04-20 09:32 pm UTC (link)
Brad--Totally off the subject, but can you please tell my why searches at http://www.livejournal.com/directorysearch.bml for country/state/city are always timing out on me, these days? It's been that way for months. I used to use it fairly often, but now your damned monkeys just frigging give up on me.

(Replies frozen)(Thread)

[info]hopefulnebula
2006-04-20 09:38 pm UTC (link)
http://community.livejournal.com/lj_support/598208.html

(Replies frozen)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)
(no subject) - [info]dabroots, 2006-04-20 09:43 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]sherm, 2006-04-20 09:52 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]matgb, 2006-04-20 09:58 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]dabroots, 2006-04-20 10:20 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]burr86, 2006-04-20 10:22 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]rarkrarkrark
2006-04-20 10:29 pm UTC (link)
Yay!

(Reply to this)

lol
[info]joecichlid
2006-04-20 10:50 pm UTC (link)
You all may not be able to detect the ad blocking software but I am sure if you said you could half of those on the net would believe you. Heck you could tell them you could detect what they were drinking if they blew on their mouse and I am sure you would have a lot of people going for it. lol

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)
Re: lol
[info]rarkrarkrark
2006-04-20 11:15 pm UTC (link)
A number of us were speculating that they'd use things like whether ad-images were requested, which is of course problematic for various reasons (check the comments on the obvious post in my journal for various examples of such discussion, though that's not the only place such discussions were happening)

One can not know for certain whether a user is using ad blocking software, but one can tell when someone isn't downloading the images or other portions of ads.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: lol - [info]dieppe, 2006-04-21 12:36 am UTC (Expand)
Show off lol - [info]joecichlid, 2006-04-21 02:07 am UTC (Expand)
Oh, good
[info]omnifarious
2006-04-20 10:58 pm UTC (link)

I would seriously have taken my paid account (and as many other paid accounts as would come with me) elsewhere over this, despite it being a huge hassle. I'm glad that you realize this is a problem and are taking out the "no ad blocking" language.

It's hard to detect ad blocking, but not impossible, and would've led to a stupid war of one-upmanship if you'd decided to try to enforce it. And I really resented being told what software I could and couldn't run on my computer. That's very much against the spirit of Open Source.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Oh, good
[info]isabeau
2006-04-21 04:25 am UTC (link)
While this is slightly a hypothetical discussion on my part, since that bit's being taken out anyway, I *would* like to point out that it wouldn't really have affected you. As a paid user, you don't see ads anyway, so there's nothing to be blocked. (Really, if this clause *did* exist, it wouldn't be so much "you can't use or install ad-blocking software, period, end of discussion" as "you can't sign up to get Stuff in exchange for viewing ads and then block the ads" -- that is, it isn't fair to accept an exchange and then change your end of the deal; if it existed, which it isn't going to, I'm guessing it would have been primarily enforced against Sponsored+ accounts.)

Am agreeing with you, though, that enforcing it would be difficult and annoying and stupid. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)
Re: Oh, good - [info]foxfirefey, 2006-04-21 05:15 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Oh, good - [info]isabeau, 2006-04-21 05:21 pm UTC (Expand)
I realized that right after I typed it up and was writing this when I got your comment - [info]foxfirefey, 2006-04-21 05:24 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]timoran
2006-04-20 11:29 pm UTC (link)
*prepares to fall on deaf ears*

Brad,

As a paid user, I feel as though this whole ad issue - particularly displaying ads to users who have not opted in - dilutes the value of my paid account, because the content I receive from free users will diminish as those free users get fed up with ads. Do you realize that when this happens, you will lose the real money you receive from paying customers in exchange for the pocket change you get from the ads?

If my friends leave over ads (and they're mostly the type that might) you will lose me also, and I am a paid user.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]avatar
2006-04-20 11:39 pm UTC (link)
I think the idea was that it would bring in almost as much (or possibly even more, for all I know).

In any case, if you don't like it, stop paying and get ads on your journal. Everybody wins!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)
(no subject) - [info]queerbychoice, 2006-04-21 01:03 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]texanforsale, 2006-04-21 10:49 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]youngvanwinkle, 2006-04-22 03:40 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]timoran, 2006-04-25 12:10 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]youngvanwinkle, 2006-04-25 01:57 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]timoran, 2006-04-26 03:20 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]youngvanwinkle, 2006-04-27 02:27 am UTC (Expand)

[info]kudra
2006-04-20 11:59 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for clearing this up.

(Reply to this)


[info]lizzie9208
2006-04-21 12:46 am UTC (link)
Wow. I'm grateful that you caught the mistake, but at the risk of sounding bitchy, it doesn't give me any faith in the "right people" if they don't review the TOS policy very thoroughly after the lawyers revise it. While the ad-blocker restriction is a tiny mistake, the fact that nobody read the lawyers changes before popping the new TOS live onto the site troubles me.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ex_shattered767
2006-04-21 05:38 am UTC (link)
Well said.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]neojng
2006-04-21 12:57 am UTC (link)
wonderful \o/

(Reply to this)


[info]timoran
2006-04-21 01:09 am UTC (link)
Also:

Why hasn't it been removed from the TOS right away?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]bradfitz
2006-04-21 01:18 am UTC (link)
Presumably because it should be done carefully this time with proper reviews.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)
(no subject) - [info]timoran, 2006-04-21 09:49 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]boredinsomniac, 2006-04-21 08:48 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]d4b
2006-04-21 06:06 am UTC (link)
I understand and respect opinions on all sides of this issue, but on the ad blocking point, try to step back for a second: If the new Sponsored level will give people more features, in exchange for voluntarily viewing ads, do you really want to give those same people the ability to block said ads (whether or not it's actually technically feasible to regulate this)?

(Reply to this)


[info]sriniram
2006-04-21 06:48 am UTC (link)
Yeah Rrrrrright, blame the "EVIL" "STOOPID" lawyers...

(Reply to this)

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…