LiveJournal is Dead - A Suburbs Boy Living a Country Life
[My Flickr Photos]
LiveJournal is Dead|
Someone in a position of leadership at SixApart clearly does not understand the Internet. Suppose, for example, noted journalist owenthomas posts a blog entry, referring to a page on a web-site which he has just lampooned for some fault.
All the owner of that site has to do is put something that violate LiveJournal's Terms of Service on that page and report Owen's post to LJ Abuse. Unless Owen can prove by context that he originally posted to a non-objectionable site, his journal is now subject to sanction up to and including deletion. The burden of proof is on Owen. Note that content does not have to be unlawful to be a ToS violation, and even if it's unlawful in California or the U.S., it might not be unlawful where the server is hosted.
Bottom line: If someone on LiveJournal links to a site you control--OR HAS EVER LINKED THERE--you can get their account
suspended. [Notice I said a site you "control," not a site you "own." This is rife for site defacers to have fun with: Is there a popular meme with images hosted on a server you've hacked? Oh boy! Let the striking-through begin!
I've been staying out of the various "sky is falling" nonsense w/r/t LJ/6A's apparently bad policies...but this policy shows how really, truly, deeply the new owners Don't Get It.
I'd sue them for making my "permanent" account valueless, but that's probably a violation of the ToS.
Current Mood: infuriated
Tags: metajournaling, pointy-haired bosses
LiveJournal's terms of service say they can terminate any account at any time for any reason. Seems reasonable to me. Don't like it? Get your own Web server.
|Date:||August 31st, 2007 06:16 am (UTC)|| |
Get your own web server
I've got mine (ok, several), right here at home with me. Maybe I should set up a blogging service? Might help pay that T1 bill... :-)
|Date:||August 31st, 2007 12:33 pm (UTC)|| |
LiveJournal has succeeeded by enabling community...
..."ToSsing" users helps keep the pool scum-free; misunderstanding the very framework in which they reside, though...that's just not good.
Those weren't the terms, for many of us, when we bought accounts. Especially true for the folks who were early adapters who bought permanent accounts years ago. (I'm not a permanent account holder, but I've been here for quite some time, long before the buyout).
Basic contract law says one side of an agreement cannot change the rules of the agreement, all changes must be authorized by both sides involved. I know that Corporate America has tried to revise this basic principle so that the Corporation can do so unless someone sues them to obey the basics of the law.
|Date:||August 31st, 2007 01:32 pm (UTC)|| |
...those great clauses that say they have the right to change the terms whenever they want [sometimes even stipulating a "no-notice" clause].
Yeah, I'm tempted to ask for my money back.