Bruce @301 - can you explain
CNN finally called PA for Obama. They're being very conservative about calling states.
The friend I'm in with in IM and I are both confused by that, because we're not sure what the basis for calling PA quite this early was, since it looks like not that many precincts have reported yet.
Just heard the first disturbing voting story locally - from a teacher who is in the same precinct as another work colleague. They were something like 2nd and 4th in line early this morning. My colleague had registered at the polls at the primary (and the teacher who told me this had been there then.)
However, this morning, my collegue was not listed as registered. Fortunately, MN has same-day registration, but when he finished registering (again!), he was told he had to go to the back of the (now 200+ person) line, rather than just go on into getting the ballot.
He argued, and they eventually let him vote without waiting in line - and yes, he's in the process of reporting it to the various appropriate places.
My colleague? Is black.
(In my precinct, everyone I saw doing same day registration was passed straight to the table to get a ballot as soon as they were done - but I was relatively early in line, and I think everyone of color before me was already registered, as there was a nice guy with a registered voter list checking people at the door and sending them down to register if they needed to.)
I voted before work (Minnesota). I got there at 6:35, to find about 30 people waiting. By 6:45, there were 70 people there, and spilling out the door. At 7, the line was well out the door and down the sidewalk.
Everyone was very efficient and pleasant, and I was out of there around 7:20, having been the 37th ballot cast in the precinct.
I love the Fairbanks Museum, though it's been a number of years since I was there. (I grew up in MA, and my family had a time share in Stowe for a few years as a good family desination with my older siblings.) It's one of those cool old Victorian museums with all sorts of random stuff in it, in glass cases and corners, and where you turn around from looking at Japanese dolls brought back by a trader to a dinosaur fossil.
And the landscape is truly lovely. (I adore Minnesota, but I oddly enough miss the MA/VT/NH mountain ranges and hills far more than the ocean.)
We were also fond of the Shelburne Museum, which is about 30 minutesish south of Burlington (and on the other side of the state), and which is another of those random collections of interesting stuff (everything from a house full of duck decoys to Amish quilts to Impressionist art to a major circus display with the most gorgeous carousel animals carved out of glowing satiny wood and an entire scale model of a circus parade that requires a quarter-mile long building to display.) Excellent for families who have lots of different interests.
Re: Palin and librarian stuff:
Some of the best commentary in the library blogs I read has been at Librarian.net - she's got a round-up post with comments and links to previous posts and other specifics at here
Also some conversation about how this blew up. (Me, I took one look at the list and went "That's off the ALA site, yep." because I've been looking at them for Banned Books Week (a week focusing on library books and challenges that happens at the end of September - this year, Sept. 29th to Oct. 5th)
I always do a series of blog posts about various book challenge that week and fully expect to be talking about this particular issue in summary: they'll be public posts at the URL linked with my name when they happen. (Most of my LJ is friends-locked, however, so you won't see much right now.)
Much good thoughts from over here, and wishing much of the getting well, and of the continued medical-related boredom, because that really is so much better than the alternatives.
Also, yay for sensible and helpful people who are more geographically useful than many of us. It's soothing to read about.
Library Bill of Rights to save people Googling.
What's fascinating to me about it is how progressive some of it was at the time (one of my MLIS papers was on the first 25 years or so it was in use, and some of the challenges to it.)
I really sympathise with people dealing with the really kooky/unsafe stuff (and I've heard some horror stories). But at the same time, if you're going to have a public library - not all of the public has your behavior expectations, your values - or frankly, your social skills.
Expecting that to be true is like expecting the teenagers at the high school library I work at to be sitting diligently at their tables silently working and asking only the smartest questions. Which is to say: unrealistic in the extreme.
Your unrealistic expectations don't give you grounds to mock other in identifiable ways in public without consequence.
I find it interesting in the comments, too, that people keep saying "We have pedophiles! They have library cards!". Honestly, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd almost rather such people use a library computer - at least there's a better chance they'll be noticed/caught. Far better, anyway, than if they were doing it at home by themselves. Of course, you also need clear policies about what happens next.
Kathryn @ 30: related to the air pollution and Omega-3 oils, another tidbit (though less rigorously documented.)
I'm asthmatic, and as well as talking to nice mainstream doctors about it, I see an herbalist (who focuses on the daily quality of life stuff).
My herbalist says that lung issues tend to deplete the fat soluble vitamins (A and E) because you burn through them far faster than normal. She has me start on A and E supplements at my normal flare times, and if I hit problems at other times.
Funny how when I do that, a significant set of fat-heavy dietary cravings go away. And I feel better - substantially so. We're not talking megadoses here but 'take one of these a day' sorts of thing, from well-reputed vitamin sources. That little bit helps a lot. I suspect my experience and your theory may be related (though it depends on the oil source: they have different amounts of A and E)
One other note for folks with lung issues:
Doctors and other research have told me that lungs take a long time to heal up (as much as they're going to).
If you've had a significant lung issue/flare in the last 12 months, expect subsequent ones to hit you harder and faster, and plan/medicate/make decisions accordingly. (Consulting with your doctor as needed, of course.)
Alex @ 3: Re: the politics bit, my brain appears to have filed it as "any data about that from mainstream media would be entirely unreliable" - that's certainly the way a lot of the teens I work with (independent private school) tend to look at it, even without a crisis of that kind. I also wonder how much of it was just in abeyance, due to the DHS taking over. (Could just be my brain filling in the details.)
In general: it's a fantastic book, and I have been pushing it at people (both staff and students.)
The voice, to pick up on comments in the open thread, read to me the same way a lot of YA books do: this is not quite the voice of the kids I work with. There's more narrative coherence, for one thing (not a bad thing in a book, though.)
But if you took Marcus and dropped him into the school I'm in? He'd fit right in, and I can see exactly which groups he'd start hanging out with, even with some dialect and focus variances. That's a level of reality I don't always see in YA books. Yes, he's arrogant, and yes, there's stuff he utterly misses. But I've not only known people who sounded just like that, but been there myself.
One of my basic principles is that you can only be reasonable with reasonable people. If the other side isn't going to be reasonable, don't rely on their better nature. Do what you need to do.
The most powerful piece of online-management advice I got was after an issue that ended up having to be handled by a moderator-equivalent due to emotional messiness. When I apologised for making his life harder, he pointed out that if he hadn't been willing to do some difficult conversations and moderation, then he shouldn't have taken on the responsibility. End result: if you're not willing to civilise your space, don't put it up/make it open/whatever.
All of this said, I notice that none of the stuff I've seen on this (though maybe I've missed it) really addresses what Teresa brings up: that the real jerks will get kicked off place A, and go to place B, repeating as needed.
Refusing to associate with people who do that (or don't argue against it), is a good start. But how do you best make it clear online whether you're ignoring someone, as opposed to being unaware they exist, or too busy right now to read or comment on their stuff?
It was indeed an excellent Minicon full of wonderful conversations with people I'd like to spend much more time talking to in future. Both old friends and, like you, good hopes for new ones.
The scurvy cure is amazing. Is there a write-up of how to make it anywhere? I looked, but have not found, though perhaps that's just the after-effects (Of either it or the con. Not entirely sure how to tell.)
Alison @22: the idea of companies having business-focused journals is actually a really old issue (I can think of examples of people either wanting it, or getting shut down for trying it back to 2000)
The policy for a while was no business stuff on a journal - personal or community. Then, it was (quite rightly, I think) decided that that was a) hard to figure out and b) unfair to people with small businesses (jewelry, soap, etc.) and arguably to others (authors, artists, & musicians who wanted to talk about their work, but that work was also for sale.) In other words, big parts of those people's lives that could not be discussed if they had to avoid all business mention that might potentially lead to sales, links to the business website, etc.
So the general approach has been that it's okay to have business stuff and "Hey, Cool New Thing!" in a personal journal, as long as some other guidelines were followed (not *just* about the business, no click-throughs, charging for additional access, charging for access in the first place, etc.) And, ideally, such that there was also personal conversation on some level there, not just business-related stuff. (Though this is much more an honor code sort of thing.)
The thing is, that's left some companies who had communities created about them in weird places - sometimes with copyright issues, sometimes with other concerns. And it means that companies that would ethically and thoughtfully use a community (for discussion and promotion of Cool New Stuff) couldn't do so.
I can see the point of sponsored communities: it makes it really clear who's in charge of maintaining the community, that it *is* intended for a commercial purpose (and not 'hey, group of people who like this thing'), etc.
I'm not likely to go look at almost any of them, mind you. But I can see why they might be attractive to some companies, including some I enjoy. And I can see why LJ might consider it worth trying.
This doesn't mean I'm happy with how they handled announcing it, or this particular example, or some other culture and/or communication glitches that have happened. I'm not. But I'm not against the basic concept, either. And I can definitely see that there might reasonably have been some demand. (And not just from big companies with no prior interest in LJ.)
I had other replies, had problems posting, lost the file it was saved in.
Simon:
Since neither you nor Jenett are admitting the massive disfunctionality of LJ Abuse, problems like this are going to keep on happening.
See, I don't think it's massively dysfunctional. I think that like most things, it could be improved. I have no trouble seeing those as co-existing. (I also, like I've said, don't assume I'm going to agree with any online service's preferred policy or practice. I don't think they're abusive just because I disagree with their handling when I've already agreed to something that says "We make the rules: it's possible they may change without notice.")
What's functional? At least every eight to ten days, on average, based on the last numbers I saw (which are outdated), the Abuse Team handles 1000 cases. Think about how few of those you hear about. Spam reports. Significant physical world issues of harassment, criminal action, threats, suicide reports, etc. Someone posting someone else's phone number to get them in trouble or harass them. Helping people who don't know the tools deal with comment harassment, banning someone etc.
Also think about the fact that at least *some* of the cases that make noise, people feel they have something to gain by being vocal. A number of them don't want to cooperate for various reasons (some good, some not so great). Some of them lie about why they got told to make a change. Some of them just like drama or attention or feeling like they're a victim. Not every thing that raises a huge stink and cry has a good reason behind it.
[Note: In this particular case, I personally feel that almost all of the people being vocal in this particular issue have raised good points, reasonable concerns, etc. I've been hoping to point out that there are better and worse ways to raise those concerns, and that escalating tensions rarely makes anything better. I say 'almost' because I cannot see how reasonable people consider significant threats or personal harassment responsible action towards solving a problem.]
Now, are there things that can be improved? Absolutely. However, many of those things don't have easy answers. Yes, in hindsight, it's clear that this should have been handled differently. However, there is *always* a topic that someone won't know the nuances of, and there are often times, on social networking sites, that something new will come up.
(Perhaps some of you remember the outrage over people being required not to use clips from the beheading videos in Iraq as a default user pic. I don't think that anyone expected people to want to do that until someone did: it certainly wasn't explicitly in the documentation at that point. Or whether graphic cartoon/drawn sex in an animated gif is different from a video clip of actual people doing it.)
I've seen a lot of "There should be better training!" Well, okay. What kind of better training? Given that this is a new and still developing technology, where are people supposed to get that training *from*?
There is, so far as I know, no inter-site communication of "Hey, we had someone try X, and claim it was okay" going on - there's occaisionally a little, through personal contacts, but there's little professional-level communication. A lot of sites are reinventing the wheel, and different issues will hit different sites first. That's a technology-wide issue, not a site-specific one.
Do you require people handling Abuse cases to go through an introduction with every topical community on the site, learning which things are hot buttons, and what phrases may be particularly inappropriate or considered insulting? That might be nice, but it's impractical in a number of ways (least of which is that those communities continue to change, grow, and develop nuances themselves Plus, on a number of topics, different sub-groups disagree on which things are actually an issue. And have you looked at the number of topics that'd need to cover?)
As noted, if you publish explicit lists saying X and Y are forbidden, someone will try and get away with Z, even though it's clearly related and intended to be covered.
As also stated, there are occaisional little blips in any community - people get upset over something, then cool down and realise it's not a huge deal or that there may be good reasons for those rules.
I work in a high school: teenagers push these kinds of boundaries all the time. (It's part of being a teenager.) F'ex, the clearly stated library/lab closure time is 4. We often get kids who want to stay later. Is the answer a) "Oh, sure, I'll stay, unpaid, as late as you want, even though I have evening plans or a meeting" or b) "Hey, sorry. Sometimes one of us can stay late, but not tonight. You have five minutes to save and finish up. Check first, next time, okay?"
Do they gripe about leaving at four? Absolutely. Ditto how they are expected to treat the space, where they can have food and drink, use MP3 players, or use school laptops. Doesn't always mean it's a rule that should be changed, or that can be changed without other consequences.
This also happens with Abuse reports. I'm sure it happens in police reports, or with other enforcement areas: some people just like pushing boundaries, and the smoke and noise don't automatically mean that a change is needed.
What people seem to want here is a system that shortcircuits replies on *both* sides (both what's coming out from the Abuse Team, and what people are reading as replies that have *already* gone out) that's instantaneous or close to it. Or a way to forsee which issues are going to be a momentary blip, and which really are a big deal.
There are, of course, real issues (like this one turned out to be). How is someone supposed to tell the difference at the point where it makes a difference? And particularly, how is someone to tell the difference between the point when the first emails of "This is our policy." go out, and when lots of complaints come flooding back in (again, often the difference becomes clear in the space of 60-120 minutes.)
If there's training out there that covers this sort of stuff, why is no one being specific about how to implement it in a practical way? This is not just general managerial stuff, either: some of the issues are specific to the format and technology methods, to age of the population, etc. I'd suspect that AOL and MSN have relevant experience: do you think they share what they know easily?
I think I've asked some pretty detailed questions about what would help here. I've seen very few replies besides what seems to boil down to "Well, they should have known better." Hard to fix something that unspecific.
(Obviously, clearly, there are some places that could be improved: someone saying "Hey, wait, big issue here, we're putting a X day hold on these cases while we learn more" would have made sense. Thing is, *that's* a policy change too. And it doesn't solve a number of other concerns people have raised.)
If you have real, qualifiable suggestions, suggest them. If you can't stand the site, don't use it. But if you actually want change, surely there are better and worse ways to handle that, and doing the better ones is more likely to get you to your actual stated goal, right?
Niall:
Jenett, you should realise that you just published a list called "How to really piss off the LJ abuse team". Did you warn them?
I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said in public, multiple times, and in places people who are inclined to make trouble are more likely to already have seen. I am also hoping that reasonable people who say they want problems resolved might take the information and use it wisely. Calculated risk.
Yonmei:
The only way anyone would be able to see that a pic 100 pixels by 100 pixels was of a woman breastfeeding would be if they were looking over your shoulder.
My desk is out in the main library area. There are work-required reasons for this. People can see over my shoulder all the time (as is, in fact, not uncommon in a number of other setups - many offices, cubes, libraries.) I am not crazy about that lack of privacy for all sorts of other reasons not related to content on my screen, (I find other people close enough to me to read my screen distracting on a physical level) But part of the point of this discussion is that *not everyone is working in the same physical or 'Net connection setup*, and thus policies and practices might want/need to take that into account.
Also:
Because I have a Permanent account, the only way I can have any impact at all on LiveJournal is to let LJ Abuse suspend me for this, and go elsewhere. I shall miss my friends-list more than I can tell you...
Actually, that isn't the only choice you have. It may certainly be the choice you prefer to take, but it's not the only one. If you decided that you were unable to stay on LJ, another option would be to remove the icon as a default (simply selecting no default, if you prefer), delete your posts, leave a final post in your journal explaining the situation, and move elsewhere.
This would make it clear why you left (much more clearly than suspension), would leave comments you've made with content that may still be useful to others available, and you would be elsewhere, where presumably you may be happier. I can certainly understand why you may prefer to be completely gone via suspension, given how strongly you clearly feel about this issue - but to say that's the only possible option that anyone could take notice of is incorrect.
Dave Bell:
Argument from authority isn't a fatal flaw. There is a form of authority based on real, checkable, knowledge. But the LJ side of this dispute seems to be based on argument from privilege. We have been told that these are the rules, but we are not allowed to see the rules.
I understand the problem. Truly. I get that it is a lousy argument. But I'm not sure what the alternatives are. The problem with posting specific policies, as has been posted earlier in this thread, is that there are people whose hobby is to find ways around those policies. This leads to lengthy feedback loops that take time, energy, and do not improve the service (or service to people who need it) in any meaningful way.
If you have a suggestion for how to solve this, that doesn't open up a site to a lot of rules lawyering (again, not "Hey, there's a discrepency here, can you clarify?" but "Ooh, look, there's a loophole! Everyone dogpile on it!"), I know a number of people, in both online and offline settings that could make use of it.
I get that this is not 'fair'. But at the same time - does everyone out here expect this from all their *other* large scale online settings? Do you expect to be intimately aware of all of their doings, details of their management, factors in a particular response? Do you expect to be able to change policy for them, because you disagree with a point? If you have a web host, do you expect that to be the case?
I certainly know I don't. I do my best to spend my time in locations where I feel the management (professional or volunteer) are people of integrity who will try and do good things. But I also have to recognise that they are human (and may mess up), that we may disagree, or that there may be factors in a situation that I know nothing about. I also keep backups of my information that I'd be sad to lose if I left a particular online location. I periodically reconsider whether a particular space is still being managed the way it was when I joined, and whether that's a good thing. That strikes me as being responsible for myself, while not placing management of *anything* on a unrealistic pedastal.
CHip:
Jenett: wrt your discussion of how quickly the decision had to be made: when did the Abuse Team turn into a combat situation? Or even a loss-of-service? The immediate reaction to the flood of complaints about other people should have been "Who can I discuss this with?"
One issue in any heirarchical structure is that sometimes the people who can decide that something falls outside of normal policy need to eat, sleep, attempt to have a personal life, etc.
I want to stress I have not seen any specific details about this case. I do know, speaking from past experience, that it is possible for things to fall out like the following.
1) Someone reports something in JournalA as a violation.
2) Violation is deemed to be totally within the bounds of current policy. Standard response to that is sent out. (In most cases where this particular avalanche has happened, the response goes out sometime in the later evening.)
This is the point which is often the significant catch. The thing is, there's a lot of stuff that comes up for the first time. There isn't a lot of conversation between people doing this work on different services (I certainly know of no professional or volunteer list that covers it) so there's a certain amount of reinventing the wheel. There's also just stuff I, personally, have come across, that I'd never have thought about in advance. (And I'm the kind of person who normally does a lot of internal personal rehearsal of possible scenarios.) There's a post on my LJ for people who want some specific examples.
While some people might spot some issues better than others, having multiple people look at every case and answer just in case there's something weird doesn't strike me as very efficient (or very necessary, 99% of the time.) And, frankly, to make that work, it would need to be people with different backgrounds, sensitivities, etc. This is easy to do when it's something new or odd, but where is that line?
3) Back in our timeline, UserA gets the response (let's say they get it at 10pm, their time) is unhappy with the response, posts to their journal and possibly other communities about how nasty the Abuse Team is being.
4) Irritated conversation happens while people discuss their feelings, annoyances, and what they want to do.
5) While there are often people on the Abuse Team with really wacky schedules (or living in different parts of the world: most of the team has usually been in the US, but has had people living in Asia, the UK, and a couple of other places I know of) most people do have some form of day job, and eventually go to bed.
6) Whoever is still checking in may start seeing complaints, but not deal with them yet. (Small write-in campaigns are not terribly uncommon, and much of the time, are people making trouble, or who just don't like a policy, not those who are presenting thoughtful reasons why it needs changing.)
Or, if they get dealt with, they get the standard "Write in campaigns are not the way to get us to change policy: we can only work with the person directly affected. Here's the policy." reply (Bear in mind that in the case of a user icon, the person contacted still has time - at least 48 hours at this point - to decide to make it non-default, and from the Abuse Team's point of view, further action doesn't happen until they don't comply.)
7) In a number of cases I can recall, there might be 10 “Hey, that’s a stupid policy” or questions at 8am. There might be 50 at 9am, and potentially a hundred or more at 10am. Somewhere in the middle of that - usually somewhere by the time you get 30-40 replies done, and see more coming in - it becomes clear there’s a much bigger issue. But by this time, the people who've gotten the "Don't start a write in campaign" are already upset to have gotten the answer, don't like it, and stuff escalates.
The board is suddenly swamped, people who were not online early in the morning need to catch up, and there's a risk of other cases which are more important in the grand scheme of things (child porn issues, direct RL threats and evidence thereof, etc.) not getting noticed in a timely fashion.
The technology to help with this has improved a *tremendous* amount from a couple of years ago - but it's still more complex to track 100 open reports/questions that need answers than 40. (Usability reasons, partly: you can get about 20-25 report summaries on a screen before scrolling.)
So, what helps? [‘You’ in the following is meant as a general/generic one, not specific]
1) The Abuse Team does best with specific questions. If you’re not sure if a particular icon or icons are okay as a default, for example, send them links, and ask. This is better than using it and waiting for someone to report you for two reasons. First, it’s a shorter response process (they lose the step of having to send an email), and second, it makes it clear that you’re looking for clarification, etc. and trying to understand what the difference is, rather than the game some people play of “What’ll get me in trouble.”
2) If you really think the policy is wrong, or very unclear, do *not* start a write in campaign. Discourage one, in fact. Instead, collect infomation, arguments, any appropriate legal references that apply, etc. and write up a single letter to be sent by someone who’s considered responsible and trustworthy and who can remain levelheaded. Post it on a community, and get the people who agree to it to comment, if you want to demonstrate that it’s an issue for a number of people. Run it by a friend who is not very familiar with the issue or your concerns, and see if they have any questions.
Note in your subject line that it is a policy concern, and make it clear in the first sentence that you’d like a manager’s response. (Chances are, with this kind of content, the managers would look at it anyway, but this way everyone’s clear up front.) This will get your point across without swamping the board. It also doesn’t expect anyone to be psychic and read your mind about what you want or why something is a problem.
(I understand, in this case, that people found certain terminology offensive. Once breastfeeding friends explained some of it to me in a civil way, parts of it made a lot more sense as to why people were as upset as they were, but it was *not* intuitive to me in several places.)
Obviously, you are not responsible for what other people choose to do - but once you start talking about coordination, encouraging this method rather than everyone writing in can make a big difference in managability and overall response.
3) Be patient: any response of this kind might take a day or three (especially if something blows up on a Friday afternoon, or near a common long weekend or something: if something needs be discussed with 6A staff, for example, there may also be time differences.)
4) Absolutely avoid stuff that encourages harassment of Abuse Team members, flooding the board, or threats. This should be obvious, for mature people, but they’re not going to help, they’re just going to raise the tension level for everyone, and they’re going to delay any thoughtful response.
5) Understand that while the ‘Net allows instant communication, now, that people still read, discuss, etc. in real time. It may very well happen that something isn’t clearly a problem for some time, and that people may write in during that time. Give people a chance to respond to new information before adding more, when possible. (Especially if it is not a time-critical issue.)
6) If, after reasoned discussion and time for a response, you’re not satisfied, then you can go up the chain further in SixApart (or whatever other company.) I’m willing to bet that if you were able to demonstrate that you laid out your arguments clearly, avoided encouraging harassment or other problems, etc. and waited a reasonable time for a response. (I’d say 3-4 business days on something that's obviously become a noticeable issue, unless they ask for more time for some reason), that you’d be taken a lot more seriously than someone who went up the chain immediately, or who also encouraged nastiness. (Particularly about concerns about the process in general.)
Like a woman breastfeeding a baby? I know pixxelpuss asserted that in the US, a baby at breast is considered to be a graphically sexual picture, but I'm still staring at that notion and finding it difficult to believe.
I haven't had a chance to ask her. But potentially, yes. Even if it's not actually considered a problem or inappropriate use at the end of the discussion, the discussion takes work time and resources.
I certainly am not crazy about it at work, because I am not the ideal person or most articulate in my workplace to have a discussion with teenage boys about why a breastfeeding image is different from other nudity. I'd prefer to avoid that conversation by not viewing them unintentionally, personally.
(I think the appropriate people for that conversation are their parents and at our school, health teachers or the school counsellor.)
Dreamalynn:
First, I don't give any credence to arguments about LJ in the workplace and the need to cater to people who access LJ in the workplace. LJ is not a business site. Its applicability to anyone in the workplace is limited at best -- particularly if they're searching the schools or interests pages, the "LiveJournal Application Space" that is reputedly so sacred.
Depends on the workplace.
I work for a private non-religious high school (in the library). I'd say I make noticeable use of information from LJ at least once a week. Sometimes it's a useful piece of information in the library communities I read. Sometimes it's a post in an RSS feed. Sometimes I ask my friends list for information or advice about a particular topic. Sometimes I go looking for a community on a specific topic, and see what FAQ or other resources they may list in their user information page.
I have occaisionally amazed my boss or teachers by being able to get an answer to specialised questions quickly by knowing I could ask my friends list and that any one of 4 or 5 people might be able to help. (My boss and I are both humanities/social sciences people by background: I have several people on my friends list with serious formal scientific backgrounds, which can be very handy for "Is X book actually good science?" or "What terms do I really want to use to narrow down this topic in searches?")
Plus, those professional resources don't always know that Magazine X is somewhat more likely to have scantily clad covers than Magazine Y. Or that while both cover SF content, Magazine X is stuff that's probably more accessible to busy teens.
Now, I'm lucky. The school doesn't have a specific policy about nudity online (and, unlike *many many* schools, doesn't filter: they just log sites gone to). We get magazines that sometimes feature significant uncovered skin (Rolling Stone, Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, Psychology Today.) But some of those don't go up on the shelf - they get a note saying they're in the library office. (Not so much from content, but because those are the issues that get torn to pieces. But people tear off the cover to keep, etc. *because* of the near-nudity, so...)
I don't run interest searches very often - I do, however, do them sometimes, looking for specific topics. I much more commonly check out someone's user information page to see if they have information about their background (because they gave information elsewhere, and I want to see how reliable to consider it.)
one click beyond those search pages can land you on pornography, advocacy of white supremacy, stories about incest, and on and on?
Nope. Because you can generally see that you shouldn't click on those in advance if you use your brain. In other words, it is a specific choice to do so, not something that just shows up from other searches. (And in the case of advocacy of white supremecy or other hate speech issues, there are sometimes it's relevant and appropriate: if a student is doing a project on that topic, for example.)
Beyond all of this, I know a number of people who use work access to provide serious, thoughtful information.
A friend (doctorate in psychology) is working for a medical company doing work on providing consumer health information online. She's been posting her findings in a LJ community, both so she can tag and find them again, and so that other people who are interested in the topic can make use of the information.
Totally okay with her employer (which does log and check 'Net usage), but complicated to explain if she had certain kinds of content show up on her screen from basic site navigation (searches, checking someone's userinfo to see their background.) Various people often comment back with links to other things she hadn't found yet, other information, etc.
I actually know several people who do that, the friend above is the one where it's most clear that it's beneficial to her job, as well as being good for her morale, stress levels, personal work habits, etc.
I'm sure that if LJ is going to be barred in libraries, userpics, default or otherwise, won't be the only reason why.
No. But they may be an additional weight to doing it. It certainly has made a difference in some of my conversations with parents, to be able to say "Your kid would have to go looking for it in specific ways. Your kid is bright: they can generally figure out what's appropriate and not with a little guidance, and that's something they need to learn before college."
(Entirely logical dividing line? No. But it has made a difference in real-world conversations with real people, which is worth taking into account.)
Certainly it would have avoided the problem of mass numbers of people e-mailing LJ Abuse, and then, as they got a stonewall "we're not changing what we do and you can't make us", e-mailing SixApart. It's a pity no one on LJ Abuse thought of doing it.
Part of the issue is that there's no current clear way to do that (apart from mailing the Feedback address, I think).
There are ways to work on that, certainly, and now that the idea's out there, hopefully there can be better clarity in future.
Userpics in which exposed areola is visible incidental to a depicted act of a mother breastfeeding a child are not to be considered inappropriate for any use across the site.
Dreamalynn:
Part of the point of the policy about default user images is to be fairly sure that images won't run into workplace, library, or other internet access point policy conflicts. Some of those policies are badly written. Some are intentionally (and in some cases wrongly, in my opinion) very restrictive. They still exist.
(How big a problem? Good question: I'm not sure there's a way to tell without running the risk of ballot stuffing or other manipulation of a poll, without a lot of time and energy.)
However, just as many people in this discussion have said breastfeeding mothers get support from those communities, other people also want the support and info they get from LiveJournal. (Some of whom get 'Net access from sources with badly designed or intentionally restrictive policies.)
I'm personally inclined towards a policy that doesn't privilege one person's desire for supportive community over another person's, when that's possible. (Which, in this case, would seem to be allowing the images, but not as the default.)
Social change so this wasn't an issue (both on the breastfeeding side, *and* on the "Y'know, seeing stuff on a screen as part of a varied exposure to the world will not permanently warp you" side) would be great. But it's not going to happen overnight. Policy in the meantime needs to take the realities into consideration.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 1 |
| 2008 | 9 |
| 2007 | 2 |
| 2006 | 18 |
| 2005 | 2 |
| 2004 | 4 |
Total: 36 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Jenett:
Show all comments by Jenett.