no_lj_ads: new ToS and Privacy Policy

kunzite (

kunzite1) wrote in

no_lj_ads,
@ 2006-04-18 11:07:00

Entry tags:

bitching, terms of service

new ToS and Privacy Policy
there was a code push yesterday.

the new ToS and Privacy Policy are live. we haven't been notified yet.

ideally, they would have been pushed live and then immediately followed by a news post. or the other way around.

why does everything seem to be done backwards?

(Post a new comment)

	burr86 2006-04-18 06:09 pm UTC (link)
	Because we have to do another code push right now, and once we finish that, we're going to be posting to news -- hold tight, don't freak out. :P (Reply to this) (Thread)

	kunzite1 2006-04-18 06:10 pm UTC (link)
	not freaking out. just confused as to why the order of events seems to always be the opposite of what i think is logical. of course, my logic is rarely the same as the logic of others. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	christine 2006-04-18 06:15 pm UTC (link)
	To be fair, when it comes to any push+announcement situation, if the push is done first, and an announcement comes later, some people will find that disconcerting. If an annoucement is made first, and the pushes to support the announcement aren't done until later, people will find that disconcerting (and to be honest, the latter is very counterintuative to me). (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

kunzite1
2006-04-18 06:17 pm UTC (link)

i guess there's a difference in this situation since it's both code changes and changes to legal documents.

when the 6a/lj thing happened, users were forced to agree to the new ToS because it was radically different.

the ToS is changing again, and i think with the previous time, we were informed before it went live and had the big announcement dealy.

i could be mis-remembering though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	burr86 2006-04-18 06:18 pm UTC (link)
	"when the 6a/lj thing happened, users were forced to agree to the new ToS because it was radically different." That actually never happened. :) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	kunzite1 2006-04-18 06:19 pm UTC (link)
	even though there's code in there to do just that? i remember seeing things. whether or not it was actually active code is another story... my brain hurts. XD (Reply to this) (Parent)

christine
2006-04-18 06:21 pm UTC (link)

we never actually had to agree to the new tos...

I'm not sure if i was around the time before that, but I remember there being a stir because when they originally moved from Washington to Oregon, the ToS was changed to reflect that without prior "warning".

I doubt that a short difference in time is going to make that huge of an issue. If it were changed months before an annoucement was made, that's shady. A few minutes, a half an hour, whatever? Not likely to cause a catastrophe.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	kunzite1 2006-04-18 06:22 pm UTC (link)
	when they originally moved from Washington to Oregon i think i joined after that. If it were changed months before an annoucement was made, that's shady. A few minutes, a half an hour, whatever? true. i'm silly and like instant notification. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	uniquewonders 2006-04-18 10:45 pm UTC (link)
	I think we were supposed to do so - I seem to remember they had warned us about that - but it never happened. But it does ring a bell so I don't think you're wrong. (Reply to this) (Parent)

burr86
2006-04-18 06:17 pm UTC (link)

Because we never announce major changes before they're pushed -- up until they're pushed, there's the potential for them to be changed or otherwise backed out. And we did two rounds of pushes -- one yesterday and one today -- to help make today's better.

The changes to the TOS/privacy policy aren't going to be announced in this post, because I think that's going to generate a whole lot more hysterics than it'd reassure people -- especially because we're initially not going to enforce the "no adblocking" portion (like you know), so to announce it would generate a bit more craziness that we don't quite want to add to this, you know?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	kunzite1 2006-04-18 06:20 pm UTC (link)
	because we're initially not going to enforce the "no adblocking" portion (like you know) i don't think i got that initial memo. foxfirefey may have. so to announce it would generate a bit more craziness that we don't quite want to add to this, you know? that's true. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	a_new_free_user 2006-04-18 06:24 pm UTC (link)
	Heh, I'm just referring to the response to your Feedback request. ;) We're not initially intending on coming after anyone who has AdBlock installed, but those provisions are there so that we can require the removal of anything that's like, "hey, go install this program, go upgrade to s+, then get more userpics!!" (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	kunzite1 2006-04-18 06:26 pm UTC (link)
	Heh, I'm just referring to the response to your Feedback request. ;) it hasn't hit my inbox yet. :\ but those provisions are there so that we can require the removal will this be address in an announcement? or is it in your response that i haven't received yet? like, the previous entry in here that was made about `userContent.css` and the like. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	burr86 2006-04-18 06:28 pm UTC (link)
	Oops, the previous response was me, testing out new stuff. g That all is covered in your response: http://www.livejournal.com/support/see_request.bml?id=573044 (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	adzite1 2006-04-18 06:28 pm UTC (link)
	i figured. ;) and i shall walk over there to check it out. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	uniquewonders 2006-04-18 10:56 pm UTC (link)
	Why changing them now if you're not going to enforce them? Why not changing them when you are going to inforce them and when you are going to make an annoucement? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	burr86 2006-04-18 10:57 pm UTC (link)
	Because, like I said, we still want to be able to prohibit people from giving instructions on how to do circumvent this -- eg, "here, install this, then do this". (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

uniquewonders
2006-04-18 11:04 pm UTC (link)

From your POV it does make sense. From my POV as a user of a service, it doesn't. It just feel like we're not told all that there is to know on the subject. Were I to give such instructions, how would I know it was forbidden if I didn't know the TOS had changed? We know they may change so, in a perfect world, as an informed individual, it's my responsibility to check them out from time to time. OTOH it's common courtesy, in my experience, to notify your users when such changes are made because everybody knows nobody actually does that. Otherwise it just seem underhanded.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	kunzite1 2006-04-18 11:06 pm UTC (link)
	fully agree. (Reply to this) (Parent)

burr86
2006-04-18 11:07 pm UTC (link)

Yeah, I totally understand that. But at the same time, I think people think it's going to be used as a form of Oppression -- it's really not. We're really only using this to keep people from actively interfering with the way the ads work on the site -- it's no different than the older provision which prohibited you from "Interfer[ing] with or disrupt the Service" (XVI/9), only it's just specifically spelling it out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	uniquewonders 2006-04-18 11:11 pm UTC (link)
	"I think people think it's going to be used as a form of Oppression -- it's really not." We think that because this is how it is phrased. We're not a bunch paranoid freaks. "We're really only using this to keep people from actively interfering with the way the ads work on the site " Is there a way to inactively interfere with the ways ads work on the site? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

burr86
2006-04-18 11:13 pm UTC (link)

Well, it's phrased stronger than it needs to be, because it covers us in the event that something comes up that we didn't expect, but still allows us to enforce it more permissively, if that makes sense.

Also, sorry, poor choice of wording: I meant more the distinction between "o hay i downloaded adblock" vs "hey guys, go download adblock so you can get more userpics for free".

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	uniquewonders 2006-04-18 11:15 pm UTC (link)
	You do realize that, as things are now, users are unable to make that distinction. The only message that the TOS screams loud and clear is 'Do NOT block ads in any way or form, by any means". (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	burr86 2006-04-18 11:17 pm UTC (link)
	That's exactly why we didn't mention it in news -- it would generate a whole lot of hysterics, and to say "we're not going to care if you use adblock" is just like saying "here's how you can avoid ads", you know? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	uniquewonders 2006-04-18 11:23 pm UTC (link)
	But then we go back to what is convenient fo you as a company and what is fair to the users and, for a lack of a better word, what is transparency in terms of communication. (Reply to this) (Parent)

kunzite1
2006-04-18 11:26 pm UTC (link)

i think the problem is that there are many levels of LJ users.

you've got your staff.
your support peeps.
your volunteers.
your s1 hackers.
your s2 hackers.
your [insert other programming language of choice here] hackers.
your artists.
your burger-flippers.
your lawyers.
your writers.
your grandparents.
your 13-year-old girls.

we all have different views upon the site and how it should work and some of us think that all changes should be well-documented and well-publicized.

others don't give a shit.

others are just clueless.

i'm sure most of the decisions about displaying information are well thought-out and stuff. but a lot of us would really like to take a peek at what's going on in order to feel better about the situation and how it relates to us and the rest of the users.

i personally would love to see a roadmap of the s2 plan. or find ways where i can effectively help things go along.

the roadmap isn't really available, but ways to help via RT are. i just haven't mastered how to do that in the best way.

so yeah. there're my silly ramblings on this subject.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

uniquewonders
2006-04-18 11:33 pm UTC (link)

"we all have different views upon the site and how it should work and some of us think that all changes should be well-documented and well-publicized."

Words.

I really resent having to ckeck all those lj_communities to feel like I have all the relevant information. I should be able to trust the staff to tell me everything or at least everything I think is somewhat important and this is not the case right now.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	uniquewonders 2006-04-18 10:58 pm UTC (link)
	Note to self: it's enforce you silly. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	uniquewonders 2006-04-18 10:51 pm UTC (link)
	I may be blind but I see nothing in the latest news post about the new TOS and Privacy Policy. Will there another New post? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	burr86 2006-04-18 10:54 pm UTC (link)
	I already addressed that point in another comment ;) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	uniquewonders 2006-04-18 10:56 pm UTC (link)
	Yep sorry. Saw it afterward. I've answered it. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	donutgirl 2006-04-18 06:40 pm UTC (link)
	It's not just the TOS that has changed. I just saw my first ad - stupid thing with a dog. Is the sky falling yet? (And no, I'm not signed up for the ad level. This was on the comment page for lj_ads, funnily enough.) (Reply to this) (Thread)

	adzite1 2006-04-18 06:42 pm UTC (link)
	i saw my first ad too! omg! (and yes, this account is signed up for the ad level. this is kunzite1, funnily enough.) ;) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	foxfirefey 2006-04-18 07:00 pm UTC (link)
	Whoa, I better use our girl to check it out for misself! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	adzite1 2006-04-18 07:01 pm UTC (link)
	you make it sound like she's our secret lovechild or something. :P (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	foxfirefey 2006-04-18 07:07 pm UTC (link)
	Isn't she? She's all ad enabled now. Seeing how it looks, I sense a horrible tug of war in the inner heart of a userpic/style lover. "Do I get more userpics, or run my style with fugly?" (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	ex_shattered767 2006-04-18 11:41 pm UTC (link)
	Oh holy heck. That makes AngelFire websites look pretty. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	foxfirefey 2006-04-18 11:45 pm UTC (link)
	Psst: I'm about to make a comment in news looking for sympathetic Greasemonkey devs and other geek types linking to the suggested tools post. What say you? In preparation of that, I've also moderated membership and membered comments, FYI. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	ex_shattered767 2006-04-18 11:49 pm UTC (link)
	Sounds like a good idea. I'm getting my inbox flooded with replies to comments I'm leaving there, so people are definately watching. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	foxfirefey 2006-04-18 07:09 pm UTC (link)
	Well, isn't she? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	ex_shattered767 2006-04-18 11:25 pm UTC (link)
	Wait, they went through the trouble of enabling ads on a permanant account? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	donutgirl 2006-04-18 11:50 pm UTC (link)
	is lj_ads permanent? Even if it is, I can imagine they were using it to test, since it's an lj-run, ad focused community. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	ex_shattered767 2006-04-18 11:55 pm UTC (link)
	Yep, it's a perm account. Pretty much all "official" comms are perm accounts. Just seems kind of...self-serving. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	kunzite1 2006-04-18 11:57 pm UTC (link)
	afaik, the caps are not mutually exclusive. they include `paid`, `perm`, and `plus`. Paid, Permanent and Sponsored+, respectively. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	crucially 2006-04-18 06:47 pm UTC (link)
	So if there is any large problems we can revert, if we announce and there is a problem, people will have way more problems ... (Reply to this) (Thread)

	kunzite1 2006-04-18 06:48 pm UTC (link)
	that makes sense. but there would be less of that (hopefully) if testing was done on a public test server where more eyes could take a look at it and try to break stuff. though, i've been told that something like the ads system would generate more arguing than testing if it was put on a public test server. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

rahaeli
2006-04-18 07:00 pm UTC (link)

We did test in a staging environment, and on local dev installs, and and and, but it's impossible to replicate the actual LJ environment in staging or test -- there are always bugs that won't be found until there are nine million eyeballs on them (or won't be found until the code is working against a large database, or one with legacy data, or working against memcache, or behaving at load, etc, etc, etc)

LJ has eighty gazillion variables; it's not possible to test in a controlled environment with all of them. We always prefer to take an extra twenty minutes after push to make sure nothing's on fire before it gets front-page status...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	crucially 2006-04-18 07:06 pm UTC (link)
	We did have testing, and we are moving to a more open testing environment where people can opt in for testing. However, the biggest problem is load, we have no reliable ways to generate the kind of traffic LJ handles, so while we can do scaling tests we can't reliably test. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	adzite1 2006-04-18 11:08 pm UTC (link)
	test. (Reply to this)

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

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs