One more, that's all. I can quit any time.

[lolaraincoat]

This is the comment I am trying to post in response to Berkowitz's apology, on behalf of LJ, which is over here. Shockingly, the servers are busted. So.

Having spent much of the past two days trying to track which journals did get suspended, and which journals were deleted for fear of suspension, and what kinds of journals they were, I agree that these are hard issues. There are vast grey areas here.

Very, very few Livejournals clearly announce that their participants intend to prey on children; lots of adults engage in activities together which, if they allowed or encouraged children to join them, would be dangerous, illegal, and morally wrong. Some of those activities, if conducted in virtual spaces that are accessible to a broader public might unintentionally provide support or encouragement to people who prey on children. These include -- just as not-so-random examples -- literary analysis of Nabokov's novel Lolita, communal gameplaying set in the Harry Potter universe which places teenage characters in sexual situations, sharing of reproduced pornographic artwork from Japanese comic books depicting imaginary young people, personal musings on surviving sexual violence and abuse, and discussions of shared interest in having sex while dressed up in teddy-bear costumes. The grayest of gray areas was the fetish sites where adults pretended to be children for pornographic role-play purposes. This week's purge shut down personal journals and/or communities devoted to all of those.

I am an enthusiastic participant in some of those activities, unmoved by others, and repulsed by several. But I can't find a clear line that divides them from each other in moral, esthetic, or legal terms -- much as I might like to, in the case of the those activities that disgust me. They all might, possibly, be used by pedophiles for masturbatory purposes, even though that is not the intention of the journal authors/artists.

So I urge you (and the collective LiveJournal "you" as well) to think more carefully about exactly what journals you are looking to weed out, even if that means going slowly in reinstating any. You can't purge every journal that a pedophile might find arousing -- it's a hopeless task. You can try to ban pedophiles, and I hope you do. But please, err on the side of openness. Remember that nearly everything all of us do on LJ is going to offend somebody and be used as jerk-off material for somebody else; you can't prevent that. Good luck.

p.s. if it helps, here's the posts where I tried to sort out the clearest mistaken deletions, with a little help from a lot of pissed-off LJistas:

http://lolaraincoat.livejournal.com/253978.html

http://lolaraincoat.livejournal.com/254490.html

Comments

..

[whorlpool.livejournal.com]

Every time lj abuse overreacts to something, Brad or someone from LJ apolgizes the next day and does something to correct the problem. Every single time. I've seen it happen about ten times now.

Perhaps there's a problem with the paranoia/witch-hunt mentality that springs up among users every time lj abuse does something controversial. Frankly, the reaction among fandom has been repulsive during the last couple days. There was always an easy solution to this problem: if someone feels they are unfairly treated, all they have to do is write to LJ and make a measured, rational, appeal. That's how civilized adults behave. Instead, all I've seen are people crying out about how unfair everything is and throwing down their spiteful gauntlets as they proclaim "fuck you, livejournal, I'm leaving you forever."

I mean, really, did anyone truly believe that a community for discussing the book Lolita was going to be banned from this place?? C'MON!! If you, or anybody else, believes that this place is such an oppressive place, where rules are haphazardly created at the whim of a cabal of wingnuts, there's the simplest solution of all: leave, and don't look back. But all this bravado I've been seeing is childish, at best, and has no basis in reality.

That's not an attack against you, per se, but I do think if you read back over the last few of your posts and the comments they've generated, you'll find that you've been carried away on a mission that never, not for an instant, was worth its production of drama.

I see getting carried away in someone else's drama as one of _the_ big problems in the world. When people get carried away, they can't see how shaky their fears tend to be. They can't figure out what the true issue is, and they can't figure out how to find real solutions. Whether on or offline, there's something dangerous and debilitating about letting oneself become a crusader for justice. The world doesn't need crusaders; it needs rational solutions to problems, and it needs dialogue between antagonists (rather than emotionally-wrought echo chambers).

It's the people in fandom who over-reacted who should be apologizing to Brad. Once again, for the umpteenth time, he's shown himself to be rational in the face of a witch hunt for his head. Why does he bother, I wonder? Maybe because he's genuinely a trust-worthy person...

and has earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt.

Re: ..

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to defend what other people wrote in my journal. Sometimes strangers show up and leave silly comments in unlocked posts, that's how it goes, and generally I'm reluctant to delete unless there's personal rudeness.

So what, in anything I've posted over the past 48 hours, seems to you like drama or gauntlet-throwing? I did point people on my f'list toward another journal which I've had since LJ had that huge DDOS issue two or three years ago, and I did that in a joky tone, but otherwise I'm trying to collect and analyze data without overmuch passion, and I haven't called for the head of anyone that I remember. But let me know if I'm wrong.

Also, who brought Brad into this? Isn't he on vacation or something?

Re: ..

[whorlpool.livejournal.com]

Woah, lighting. Did you hear that thunder just now?!

My comment wasn't really as directed towards you and the people commenting in your journal as it must have seemed. So, I apologize if I came on a bit strong and it seemed I was attacking you.

My comment was meant to address a broader problem. A bunch of people on my friends list were saying they were about to leave LJ over this or were saying, "Fuck you, LJ" or were taking a completely uncritical/paranoid view of this. People who should know better because they've seen this kind of thing happen time and again, always with the same exact result: Brad steps in and LJ abuse tones down their rampage.

Whenever there's controversy, all the bored people come out of the woodwork and act as if the world (their imaginary safe world which has never for a moment actually been so very safe) is on the verge of ending. It gets tiring after you see it happen a dozen or more times.

Also, really, let's be honest here: age play in fan fiction is controversial. It's not hard to see how it might very easily be labeled pedophilia. We know that. Everybody who writes or reads it knows that. If they don't, they have severe reality issues. It's no surprise when journals which flirt with such issues get caught up in a purge. It's no surprise. It behooves people in fan fiction to take the necessary measures to remain under the radar, and that includes not advertising the controversy on one's info page, where people who have genuinely pedophilic urges can't so easily find material to satisfy their cravings. Also, you and I both know that the entire question is a grey area. There's no line separating pedophies from people who flirt with pedophilic ideas. You and I can't easily draw a line there. What would possess us to believe that LJ Abuse, or anyone else for that matter, is going to draw that line in a way we approve? Better to stay out of LJ Abuse's notice altogether, no?

Also, for one Lolita07 community that discusses Nabokov, there are a hundred thousand Lolita07's (I'm only partly exaggerating here) online which exist for a sole purpose: to titillate one's desire for an underage girl. Is it so surprising that that community accidentally got swept up in this?

Re: ..

[whorlpool.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I'm the one who brought Brad into this. I'm a complete idiot and can't read. Barak, not Brad. Duh! Generally, though, if it's not Brad apologing, it's somebody else. Always the same result.

Re: ..

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I should say that a community for the literary analysis of the novel Lolita really was suspended two days as part of the purge. Yes, it was a dumb mistake and soon to be corrected (I hope) but it did actually happen. So there you go.

Re: ..

[whorlpool.livejournal.com]

I know it happened. I'm not casting doubt on that. I'm saying that a reality check is in order: will that community be banned forever if they're completely non-controversial?

No. It won't. That was never a realistic possibility.

Re: ..

[spare-change.livejournal.com]

That was never a realistic possibility.

Are you speaking officially on behalf of anyone? Have you read any of the statements LJ Abuse sent to the people whose LJs were affected? Where they said that "We know you're not guilty, but we're not reinstating your LJ anyway"?

The only reason things are changing now is precisely because of fandom's "over-reaction."

Re: ..

[spare-change.livejournal.com]

Um, LJ Abuse has been notorious for years for not following ToS and overstepping their boundaries. I've never seen apologies for that. Are you familiar with Nipplegate?

Having one's LJ deleted for spurious reasons does not mean that we should be apologizing to Barak. As a CEO who is new to managing LJ and has little understanding of its culture or users, I don't see why he deserves the benefit of the doubt or why we should assume he's genuinely a trustworthy person.

There was always an easy solution to this problem: if someone feels they are unfairly treated, all they have to do is write to LJ and make a measured, rational, appeal.

And you think they haven't done that? You're sorely misinformed, sorry.

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

brilliantly said. *applauds*

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[executrix.livejournal.com]

Wasn't it HL Mencken who said that the Puritans were opposed to bearbaiting not because of the pain it caused the bear the but the pleasure it gave the spectators?

Actually having sexual contact with children is (properly) illegal because it is harmful and distressing to children and because it is immoral to have sex with people who are uanble to give consent with full knowledge of what is involved. However, if a group of adult pedophiles want to spend their time chatting with each other about how hot little Timmy looks in that Sears Roebuck bathing suit, I'm squicked but I don't think any immorality has been committed. In fact it may operate as a harm reduction measure by reducing the pedophiles' incentive to seek out real children.

Of course it's always the censors who get access to more porn than anybody else...

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

See, I would say that "adult pedophiles ...[spending] their time chatting with each other about how hot little Timmy looks in that Sears Roebuck bathing suit" is not merely icky-to-me but immoral in a broader sense. But it isn't dangerous to children if it's not where children can see it, and it isn't illegal as far as I can see - which is a good thing.