LiveJournal: When the LJ abuse prevention team become the abusers, who will protect the LJ users?

Sunday, May 21, 2006

Breasts -- now against a TOS near you

LiveJournal Abuse doesn't like breasts. Not in art, and not feeding babies. They used to forbid inappropriate default user icons, defined as sexual or violent, with the reasoning that offensive icons should not be displayed on areas of LJ where someone could come across them by accident. But now they have extended that to any view of a naked breast with any nipple showing, whether it's on a piece of art or breast-feeding mothers. The breast-feeders are not happy, and drama has errupted.

LJ Abuse is thought to have gotten over 700 emails in protest. Are they listening to their users? No, they are closing ranks behind the stupid decision, just like usual.

How did this craziness come about? It started when LJ Abuse told hardvice his post-modern art icon was breaking the rules. You can read the details on hardvice's LJ.

Is this an obscene image?

Also see:

Changing the Rules

LiveJournal and customer relations

Responses to Six Apart's response

Tags: , , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

They could lose a lot of customers over this.

12:19 PM

Blogger Christine said...

You should add: this contradiction, plus the fact that they changed the wording of the FAQ on May 20th to support the new anti-boob interpretation.

Also, see my reply on your thread on abuse_lj_abuse, to another outright lie posted by someone on the abuse team.

12:39 PM

Blogger Christine said...

Also, see my LJ for a couple of other links. realcdaae

12:42 PM

Blogger Jennifer said...

Oh, please. The boob Nazis aren't going anywhere - they're just talking a bunch of smack. Personally, I'm happy to see LJ sticking to their guns. NOT because I agree with their reasoning, but because boob nazis are incredibly annoying. They weren't expecting this. They thought they would just do their usual shrieking act and LJ would fall all over themselves to make things "right", and LJ didn't do that. I love it. Let the moos go graze elsewhere, for all LJ gives a damn.

So, little froggies. Gonna jump now? Of course you're not.

1:47 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL yeah I doubt the boob nazis will leave LJ, good to see that LJA's stupid is getting seen by more people though.

2:05 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

no one wants to see anyones damn boobs

5:12 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah Lindsey, that's why people buy magazines just to stare at them.

5:39 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one wants to see man boobs but they're allowed.

6:42 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I bet some of the boobnazis are mad enough to ditch LJ. lol.

6:48 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

My, my, my.

What a sense of entitlement these moos have. It's not obscene it's for the BAYBEEEEEEEEEEEES.

I just bought five paid subscriptions for friends to THANK LJ for not rolling over to these whining bitches.

Most of the moos in question have free accounts anyway. For every two paid boob nazi account there are seven freebies. Moos are Moochers.

8:46 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

God save me from the militant child-haters. "Moos". Puke.

8:17 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Uh yes, breasts are not obscene, you stupid fuck.

8:48 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh no. god forbid you show a child EATING! what's wrong with you? and lj abuse? i can't believe they said this is inappropriate.

1. women breastfeed their babies all the time in the public space. the internet is public space. what is the difference?

2. as someone said above, people buy magazines to see women's breasts. the second a breast is nonsexualized and becomes a working breast and a way to feed a baby it becomes obsene and inappropriate.

wow. those of you who agree with lj abuse.... your stupidity worries me.

2:11 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone who uses the word moo like that loses the right to be taken seriously.

2:50 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh lord, people who can't cope with seeing boobies shouldn't be on the internet, and parents who have a problem with it should control what their little kids can see. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

5:48 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

ya...those breast are horrible.

8:12 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

lol livejournal, full of stupid as ever.

11:17 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a stupid decision.

3:17 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

They are doing it because there a lot of customers that use LiveJournal where it's not polite to show bare shoulders or knees- So you know it's very impolite for a breast to be out in the open. They are doing for those people. And for people like me who want to vomit when they see a woman breast feeding. I do not want to see your boobs, especially boobs with babies on them, it's rude to do that in public. What makes you think everyone is alright with seeing that?
People think it is oh-so natural, but it would be just as natural for me to have sex with my boyfriend on a cafe table or to take a picture of us in the act and use it as my default picture. I mean THAT is natural. It's very natural. It's also natural for people to take a shit. Do YOU personally want to see default pictures of people on the John? It's all the same when it boils down.

I believe LifeJournal said no nudity of any kind in default pictures, so why is a boob with a baby attached to it any different? A boob is a boob, like LiveJournal said.
No one is telling them they have to get rid of the pictures all together. They just don't want them as the default pictures. People are being whiney and difficult over nothing.

7:21 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK Stormy, why don't they forbid default icons showing shoulders and knees too?

It is not any more rude to breastfeed in public than it is to eat a burger in public or drink a coffee. The right to breastfeed in public is protected by law in the US (the right to have sex in public is not). If you find babies being fed so disgusting you should stay in doors and turn off your image loading.

10:28 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I for one am glad that they're taking a stand against images including bare breasts. Not because it offends me, but because my ex put naked pictures of me up without my permission and LJ wouldn't do anything about it. (Let's not get into the fact that he had them, I know that was stupid.) *Now* all of a sudden it's not allowed... bah. Wish they said that months ago.

4:28 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. women breastfeed their babies all the time in the public space. the internet is public space. what is the difference?

You can HAVE a breastfeeding icon. You can even have a DEFAULT breastfeeding icon. All you have to do is make sure that it meets LJ's "editorial standard".

Just for the heck of it, I Googled and downloaded a picture showing two filipinas breastfeeding; both women had very large, very dark areolae. It took me less than a minute to make the picture conform to LJ's standards for default icons.

So the problem is what, again?

4:46 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home