?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
31 May 2007 @ 03:13 pm
Maybe we're the people to be asking for this...  
We've all watched the drama. We've all seen the apologies. We've seen that 6A wants to ensure this doesn't happen again.

Between this and the lack of response to the "LJ Mojo" meme, maybe us permmembers should be talking to 6A about setting some real policies to support the Terms of Service, and fixing what's broken with the abuse team.

I totally get that when you're acting on allegations of illegal activity that it makes sense to suspend first and investigate second.

I'd like to see an investigation and contact policy to follow that, though. My ideas?
1. They update their administrative interface to include a notification to the suspended journal/community owner immediately as part of the suspension process. This notification should include the specific TOS violations cited.
2. They create a separate review/appeal department. The administrator or volunteer who suspends a journal isn't the person who follows up on the request. The reviewer has no emotional or personal investment in justifying the original action.

Other ideas?
 
 
 
Nuggieccnuggie on May 31st, 2007 10:56 pm (UTC)
Yeah, the whole lj_abuse system is a massive clusterf**k

Once you're deemed guilty of something, you're lucky if you can get them to respond to you, and there is no talking sense to them. They're god, and you're screwed. Seems to be absolutely no oversight.

They're commonly referred to as the lj abuse nazis, and with good reason.
Cytherea: Thoughtful/Curiousnightsinger on May 31st, 2007 10:57 pm (UTC)
Citing specific examples (e.g. "This entry URL: http://username.livejournal.com/12345.html contains the following material that is not TOS-compliant: X, Y, Z.") along with the specific TOS sections would be good.
Artelaartela on May 31st, 2007 11:05 pm (UTC)
Having LJ abuse respond properly to *real* abuses of the system (like the LJ mojo thing) would be a good first move...

...with a good second move being having a way for people who's accounts get suspended to actually rectify whatever they think the problem is (for minor violations such as "inappropriate interests in interests list") so they can be reinstated...

...and not bending to requests to suspend journals from self-appointed "special interest" groups...

...and lastly - to be *open*, *up front* and *honest* about what they're doing, and why, and directly with the livejournal users - rather than stuff getting out to outside news places before anyone inside LJ world knows what is going on!

basically, yes, they sucked on this issue. Let's hope they improve.
Nuggieccnuggie on June 1st, 2007 12:50 am (UTC)
What is this LJ Mojo thing you speak of?

My lj news knowledge is no longer leet
(no subject) - kengr on June 1st, 2007 01:24 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - ccnuggie on June 1st, 2007 01:34 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - ccnuggie on June 1st, 2007 01:34 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - bovil on June 1st, 2007 02:47 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - kengr on June 1st, 2007 03:16 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - bovil on June 1st, 2007 06:08 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - kengr on June 1st, 2007 07:34 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - artela on June 1st, 2007 06:55 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - kengr on June 1st, 2007 07:35 am (UTC) (Expand)
Amanda: Arrrr! -Jack Sparrowbyfaith on May 31st, 2007 11:08 pm (UTC)
I personally feel that the owners of the suspended account should have been warned in the beginning, something along the lines of: "The interests section of your journal contains illegal activities (x, y, z). You have three days to remove these interests before your account is permanently suspended."

Since 6A came into the picture, my trust in LJ has slowly but surely been desintegrating.
qfemaleqfemale on May 31st, 2007 11:15 pm (UTC)
suggestions is a good place to post this.
Just because we're permies doesn't mean we should be talking to 6A about it (my opinion only, get your own!).

Honestly I am all for a better explanation about 'interests' and as they are actually 'likes' and why nobody knew that.
If you are interested you can read my reply to the news post here, it contains all the stuff about 'interests' that I think need to be changed for further drama not to occur.

Anyway, I like your ideas you posted!
Andrew Trembleybovil on June 1st, 2007 03:01 am (UTC)
I'm just thinking a discussion here is a good start to help me (and anybody else interested) frame my final submission, whether it's to suggestions or as a letter to the 6A office.
(no subject) - qfemale on June 3rd, 2007 11:30 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - jennieknits on June 1st, 2007 03:05 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - qfemale on June 1st, 2007 03:08 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - jennieknits on June 1st, 2007 03:22 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - bovil on June 1st, 2007 06:52 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - redatt on June 1st, 2007 08:03 pm (UTC) (Expand)
ZJRwinterknight on May 31st, 2007 11:22 pm (UTC)
1. That's supposed to be the case. Always. But people don't necessarily check their email. It could be altered to also put an alert through the LJ message system or on the navigation bar.

2. You're asking for something rather fairytale there. Resources and a sense of internal loyalty are going to make what you want nigh impossible. On the other hand, I do believe that some kind of ombudsman is a worthy investment of LJ/6A's funds.

Suggestions:

A review of and a banishing of the ridiculous literalism going around. 'Friends List' needs to go. 'Interests' is great. The little one line suggestion of how to word your interests effectively absolutely has no indication that it is LJ policy that interests=likes and that must be clarified. A FAQ on interests that states that an interest listed is not an endorsement of the concept/action/etc should be in place.

An actual liason with law enforcement and lawyers who are experienced in internet law as it pertains to criminal acts and obscenity to confront the issues of actual criminal activity that do exist here on LJ. Not an investigation or a hunt but establishing good practices and courses of action when something is reported. The fact that this has not yet been done is genuinely unfair to the administration of LJ as a whole and LJ Abuse specifically.

Better support for LJ Abuse/Support, including the previously mentioned ombudsman office (which should be voluntary and should include a review process much like LJ Abuse, yet not directly associated with LJ Abuse) and more paid positions in order to prevent these 'accidents'.

Better communication between LJ/6A administration and LJ users, perhaps relying on their volunteers. There is a pool of dedicated, long-term users in constant contact with the administration -- someone needs to start listening to them, and 6A admins need to listen better to the LJ Admins (not the ones they put here, the ones that came from here).
ZJRwinterknight on May 31st, 2007 11:36 pm (UTC)
Let me add that in my not very humble opinion, having been a member in the past, the only thing 'broken' with the Abuse Team is the lack of support they get, both in terms of resources and general moral support. Do things need fixing? Maybe. But to single out the Abuse Team as if it were some kind of independent entity is completely incorrect. In the years that I have been a member, this has not been the case. The veil of privacy that surrounds them should not be interpreted as a lack of upward transparency. I wanted to say every time I was insulted and harangued: I Just Work Here.
iRamble: LJ: insanityredatt on June 1st, 2007 12:09 am (UTC)
I don't think 'Friends list' is a ridiculous literalism, unless you're talking about the way some people strictly adhere to just one of the many subtle differences in definition to be found in the average dictionary. 'Friend' has a fine and long tradition of meaning member, supporter, subscriber and other like things. I would be sad to see it go.

I'm moslty with you on the other things and especially so on LJ's boggling ideas about 'Interests'.
All the Colours of the Merainbow on June 1st, 2007 01:49 am (UTC)
what's wrong with "friends list"? everyone on mine IS my friend, or i certainly wouldn't be reading their journal or letting them read mine!

some of them are the reasons i came to lj in the first place, other's i've met here, but i don't add anyone unless i feel comfortable enough with them to call them friends, and most of them i know offline.

the interests things -- i have found support in the past for both mcs and brain injury via interests, but i sure don't LIKE them! and i have lots of friends who are survivors of abuse who have found support communities via interests. i get what barak was trying to say, but to put the "if it's in your interests you must like it" spin on things is silly, imo.

i agree about the abuse team. they may need more internal support and better direction, but they can only follow the policies they're given, and i don't think they deserve getting the flack for lj's decisions.
(no subject) - bovil on June 1st, 2007 06:06 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - winterknight on June 2nd, 2007 01:45 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - winterknight on June 2nd, 2007 03:00 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - winterknight on June 2nd, 2007 03:01 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - winterknight on June 2nd, 2007 03:01 am (UTC) (Expand)
Lackadaisical Sophistpinkfu on May 31st, 2007 11:37 pm (UTC)
heh, good luck with all that.
ankhayraankhayra on June 1st, 2007 06:40 am (UTC)
A good start would be not to react to organizations like what happened now. The police is here to investigate illegal activities.

And also, let's not start hasty operations when Brad is not available. Wait for him. He's the only person I really trust.
Elfyelfy on June 1st, 2007 06:40 am (UTC)
I would really like if LJ thought a bit better about the 'interest list' thing. I ALWAYS saw the interest list as a list of things I am INTERESTED in, in a neutral, maybe academic way at first, not a list of things I neccessary promote or support.
Schneelockeschnee on June 1st, 2007 09:56 am (UTC)
Good ideas. I'd also like to see a formal process myself where the abuse team - depending on the severity of the (perceived) offense - is required to talk to people before suspending anything, and in a nice tone for that matter (in other words, it should be "hey, we noticed that you're doing X, that's not very cool, so it would be great if you could stop/change that" rather than "rectify immediately or be suspended, citizen").

Not that I know what kind of tone LJ abuse actually uses now, of course, but I just want to be on the safe side there. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and most people are reasonable and will listen when you talk to them in a friendly and calm fashion and explain (!) why what they're doing is a no-no.

So I think that making that a required part of the process would help lot - it might create some extra work for the abuse team, but that's hardly a problem when it'd also give the abuse team a better reputation.

Outside of that, it'd also be nice if the ToS were rewritten as a social contract of sorts: that is, if Livejournal actually committed themselves to not just having rights, but also responsibilities. In other words, no executives talking about the "sort of community we want to build" anymore...

If that's not possible, it'd be nicer if the ToS were actually clarified so that it'd be clearer what actually *can* get you suspended - no "we reserve the right to do whatever we want, at any time, for any reason (even none at all)".

And of course, people should actually be notified when the ToS are changed, and the notification should contain an actual diff, too, so that they could see what exactly did change. Transparency, folks.