The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Kim:

pixxelpuss: I see the point you're making, and I don't think all offensive icons should be banned. My knee-jerk reaction is that offensive icons are either okay, or they're not. Non-default icons are just as easily accessible as default icons. Default icons are only considered more visible because they show up in searches and on the user info page -- but I could upload a really offensive icon and use it to post to all my friends' and community LJs and to every post on my own LJ, and it would be much more visible than seeing it just once on my user info page or on a page of search results. To say that this "offensive" icon is okay, but that one is not simply because of where it is seems silly to me.

idonotlikepeas: (From long, long ago) My point was that only suspending people who have "offensive" default icons implies that it's perfectly acceptable to have offensive non-default icons, and smells like a load of crap to me. If I complain about a non-default icon that I find truly and outrageously offensive (of which I can find plenty; and I'm not easily offended), probably nothing will happen because it's not the default icon. Therefore, offensive non-default icons are approved by LJ/SA. I haven't tested my theory yet, but since LJ/SA is making it a point that it's "only" the default icons at issue, I suspect that my theory will hold.

The fact that it's "just the default icon" is a load of bull, as far as I'm concerned. Default icons are more visible, yes, but a user's non-default icons are just as easily accessible to any minor -- and there are plenty of icons that are much more offensive than partially exposed breasts in the context of breastfeeding. I have half a mind to post a hundred of the most offensive icons I can find under the heading "LJ Approved."

Comment statistics for Kim on the Making Light blog

Total: 3 comments. View all these comments on a single page.