About the whole "adult journal" thing

[yendi]

When I was twelve or so, I picked up a book at Barnes and Noble called Dunn's Conundrum (which almost became a movie starring Chevy Chase). I grabbed it because it was written by "Stan Lee," although it pretty clearly wasn't the same Stan Lee I'd expected. It was a middling spy novel with a neat gimmick (the title character was superb at analyzing people's behavior by going through their trash), but it also had a lot of sex. A lot of kinky sex, in some cases featuring acts I'd never even thought possible.

At around the same time, I also read Asimov's I, Robot. There was decidedly little in the way of sex there, yet it was unquestionably as mature, content-wise, as Lee's book.

Here's the thing: There was not, nor should there have been, any sign saying that either book contained adult content. I was capable of reading the words, and handling their content, on my own. The content that's labeled in a bookstore is the "early reader" and the "young adult" stuff, not the stuff aimed at adults. It's assumed that, if there's no label, the works are "adult," and (further), that readers can make their own call about how old they have to be to handle the stuff.

I'm assuming that all of your journals contain adult content, in the sense that intelligent people putting words on (virtual) paper tends to be adult content unless explicitly directed at kids. I don't need, want, or benefit from labels, and don't really have much use for anyone who does*. If anyone under fourteen comes across this, or any, journal, they should be able to make the same decision about reading stuff online as they would if they happened across Dunn's Conundrum in their local bookstore. If they're not capable of making such a decision, that's a problem that rests on their parents and teachers.

So, yeah. Livejournal's Mature Content idea is one that can go fuck itself. In the ear.

*I make an exception for adult-oriented images, as there's not the same ability for people to process the type of content before having seen the pictures themselves.

Comments

[stevietee.livejournal.com]

I agree, and until parents think their children can handle adult content, they need to keep the kids off-line (as well as they can -- obviously, kids can go to their friends' houses or the library or wherever, but kids will always find ways to cirumvent their parents, if they really want to).

[emilytheslayer.livejournal.com]

Preach it, brother.

[jathomas.livejournal.com]

Had that same book. "Stan Lee"? Whee, this is gonna be GREAT!

Hurm.

[allah-sulu.livejournal.com]

I read a different book by that same non-excelsior Stan Lee. Thought it was horrible.

[sparkfrost.livejournal.com]

I'll second that, and commend you for having a much more mature response than I did. (I typed out a string of curse words as my "adult" version of nah nah nah nah nah nah!)

[cscottd.livejournal.com]

I don't really mind so much that they added the ability for people to set a "rating" for their own posts. Those who want to will use it; those who don't, won't.

The fact that other people can "flag" posts as objectionable (and that multiple flaggings will notify the LJ Abuse team), on the other hand, is a very bad idea.

What if, for example, a group of fundamentalist creationists decided that they didn't think children should read my posts about evolution? or some of my anti-extremist-religion posts tick them off and so they launch a campaign against my journal and start flagging everything?

I mean, seriously, where does it end?

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

The fact that other people can "flag" posts as objectionable (and that multiple flaggings will notify the LJ Abuse team), on the other hand, is a very bad idea.


It occurred to me this morning - this is the same system that Craigslist uses and no one bitches about that.

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

Which is why it takes multiple flags before someone will even look at the flagged post. At which point the process becomes the same as before - LJ Abuse will look at it and make a judgment call. The problem in the system is that judgment call since we still don't have a clear set of whatever standards LJ Abuse is using. It's not the flagging system itself.

I AM relieved that people who misuse the flagging system will lose the privilege and that people are limited in the number of flags they can place in any given amount of time.

[cscottd.livejournal.com]

Even if that's true, there's a big difference between that and letting anyone and everyone flag content they consider "objectionable" or "offensive" in my personal journal.

(1) Ignoring the huge potential for misuse, there is just the fact that different people are all going to have different views of what is, and isn't, "objectionable".

(2) It's my personal journal.

(3) If someone publicly posts something that is actually illegal, there is already a mechanism in place to report it to LJ Abuse, which is a very different thing from adding a little flag icon where people can basically "vote" on whether something is offensive or not (note: not illegal, just offensive).

(4) And have I mentioned that it's my personal journal? If someone is offended by my lengthy discussions of the erotic nature of fractals or why I think the 37th digit of pi is way cooler than the 15th digit, there is a simple solution: Don't read my journal.

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

I'm not attacking you personally or dictating what you can or cannot post in your journal so I don't appreciate your totally aggro tone with me.

1. Absolutely they are. Which is why, I think, they are opting to only review entries that get multiple flags. And, yes, it can be misused - ANYTHING can be misused and, in fact, has been in the past.

2. I'm not arguing anything against that. But your personal journal is hosted on a commercial site. The concerns of the commercial site, from a practical standpoint, are sometimes going to override your personal concerns. It isn't fair and it sucks but it is what it is: reality.

3. I think the flags are actually meant to streamline the process of reporting stuff to LJ abuse.

4. I'm not arguing that with you. I agree. But we get back to the whole CYA thing.

[cscottd.livejournal.com]

If I came across as taking an antagonistic tone with you, I certainly didn't mean to. If there was any aggro there, it was directed at this new flagging policy, not at you, and I apologise if it seemed otherwise.

1. My main problem with this is that it opens up the potential for the worst kind of "mob democracy". All it takes is one person with a loyal following (or a lot of sock-puppet accounts) to decide that any post about llamas (for example) is offensive, and all of a sudden, all of my llama posts are being flagged and sent to LJ Abuse.

Now, the Abuse Team may, or may not, actually consider my posts objectionable and therefore may do nothing at all. The problem is that, since there is no clear definition of "objectionable", it's all going to come down to what that individual thinks. If it just happens that they were attacked by a llama once, they may side with the mob. If not, they probably won't.

2. You're absolutely right, and I certainly don't think that I have the right to post anything that I want. If I publicly post something that is a clear violation of the law, then LJ Abuse has every right to have it removed. That's not, however, the same thing as giving everyone the right to vote on whether they think my post is objectionable or not. This isn't Wikipedia; it's my personal journal.

3. Perhaps, but it streamlines it too much, and it adds that new, vague, catch-all category of "Objectionable Post" to the list of more-clearly-defined categories that already existed. It's not needed, and the potential for abuse far outweighs any possible benefit.

4. I get the whole CYA thing, but surely there could be better ways of doing that.

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

I appreciate the clarification - I'm so not setting myself up as anyone's judge and jury about this, you know? I'm interested in this conversation because a) few people will have it in a critical way and b) I think people's concerns are mostly valid anyway.

1. I do think that's a potential concern. I just don't know how likely it is to actually become a problem with, for example, llama posts. The stuff that can go either way IS going to be a problem but it would be a problem no matter what the system was. Because defining "objectionable" is the most massively sticky task when dealing with a community this size. Every time we try to build some flexibility into our definitions, people freak out. But every time we clearly state our definitions (in the committee I help mod, which I can't remember if I've mentioned in this thread or not) people freak out even more. There's no way to make everyone happy on this one and, ultimately, the new Livejournal Inc is going to make itself happy because they are the ones who have to deal with the process.

2. There's still what ought to be and what IS. I hate it and I hate the necessity for it given the world we live in. We're edging closer and closer to a nanny state and protective measures like these actually push us closer, I think.

3. That's subjective, I think. I'm all for stream-lined.

4. I'm sure there are ways that you and I might think are better but they'd piss off someone else. No pleasing all people and all that.

[allah-sulu.livejournal.com]

I don't really mind so much that they added the ability for people to set a "rating" for their own posts. Those who want to will use it; those who don't, won't.

That's how I feel; and many people already put NSFW stuff under warnings and LJ cuts. But the flagging of other peoples' posts? No.

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

I don't actually mind the new settings as they are voluntary. Setting an Adult Concepts level effectively removes some books from the Young Adult literature section and that's okay. And, hell, products intended for adults are absolutely marked Explicit if they contain explicit content.

And, yeah, parents should absolutely be monitoring their kids online experience. Except sometimes they don't. This system is in place, I'm sure, to protect LJ from litigation and I'd rather they take those precautions than get sued because someone wasn't watching their child who wound up in a slashfic community or something. Should we NEED these labels? No. But "should" is often a far cry from reality.

Livejournal is not a childfree space, nor is it even predominantly an adult space as much as we'd like to think it is.

[28bytes.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I like the idea of the Internet in general (and LiveJournal in particular) as being the equivalent of the Young Adults section.

I'd rather it be just a regular old bookstore, where there are sections for young adults, and sections for explicit materials, but the vast majority of content exists outside those labeled sections.

It's not quite voluntary if you have to choose to either label your content as one of (I paraphrase) "child-friendly", "adult" or "hard-core adult". I'd rather just be unlabeled and let readers figure out for themselves how they'd categorize it.

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

The internet in general IS a bookstore. But, given the demographic spread of Livejournal, it's a bookstore whose primary customers are young people.

I'd love to be unlabeled and let readers figure it out for themselves but, yeah, that leaves this site, which is a major commercial endeavor at this point, open to all sorts of nasty litigation. The site has grown beyond "people will figure it out for themselves." Hell, I mod a large (over 2500 members) community and we can't even tell people to use their own judgment about something because they'll freak out. As the community grows, the boundaries have to be better defined. It sucks ass, I won't deny it, but in the scheme of things I am far more worried about Livejournal being owned by a company that resides in a country where media control is of primary concern.

[28bytes.livejournal.com]

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't comment on the assumptions that (1) LiveJournal has a legal liability if some underage folks come across and read about "adult concepts" on someone's blog, and (2) the labeling system will shield them from this legal liability if it exists.

As for SUP, well, the Putin administration will have to pry my cat macros away from my cold, dead hands.

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

I think the definition of legal liability is, unfortunately, getting more and more... loose. So I understand CYA when I see it, even if I don't like it and even if I don't think it will be all that effective.

On the positive side, there are some damn fine macros to be made from that Russian repository of cat pictures.

[jerel.livejournal.com]

In Soviet Russia, cat macros make you?

[amokk]

It's only effective for public posts, and now it just takes 3 clicks to read those things instead of one. It's just a lame CYA for LJ that fucks up peoples' potential cut-tags they might have already used.

The only decent part about it is being able to set "adult" communities to adult and the system auto-checking birthdays so mods don't have to any longer. Any system that allows children/minors on (from WoW to whatever) should have this sort of feature.

[jerel.livejournal.com]

I think after the outcry from the bannination based on interests (when several communities for survivors of sexual abuse were shut down), they'll take the time to distinguish between what's adult entertainment and what's educational. However, I'm just cynical enough to think they won't; there's still filtering software out there that blocks out information related to STDs and breast cancer.

[beldar.livejournal.com]

The rate-your-own journal system would be OK, except for a major flaw: unless the reader displays his/her birth year on his/her userpage, the system puts up an "I am over 14/18" warning page for every one of your entries, regardless of any entry's specific content. This makes LJ very user unfriendly, and insulting to my 40-year-old friend who, even while logged in so the LJ database should know better, has to say she's not under 14 to see anything I write.

So while everyone I know here are PG-13 people living PG-13 lives, I've switched my journal back to All Ages. I'll friends-lock anything I'm not comfortable with, so random impressionable kids aren't too likely to see it.

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

You don't have to display your birth year for the system to know what it is - this is a problem popping up for people who have had livejournals for a while. Apparently, when registering now people are asked for a birth year and if they want to display it or not. So your friend needs to set her birth year with the system and then elect not to display it.

[amokk]

It no longer requires public birthdates: the system has been recording birthdate at registration since 2006, and that's what the system checks. So if you register as 16, then change your age to be 21, you're still kept out of the 18+ "adult" communities. If you're a normal kid on the internet, you registered as 18+ even though you're 12, and no one's the wiser. ;)


eta: or at least, it should work this way. LJ rarely seems to work as it should...

[beldar.livejournal.com]

I was pre-'06 so didn't know (thought all sites like this had always required full birthdate at signup, I guess I remembered it wrong)

I know kids can bust the system anyway, but I gather from the context of my freinds' journals that none of them are kids (except for three teens, and I know who they are)

[creentmerveille.livejournal.com]

A friend of mine and I were discussing this type of thing the other day-- she was wishing that all books and websites came with essentially an MPAA-style ratings system on them so that she could easily police which books were appropriate for her child's maturity level. I think that would be a terrible thing.

I'm an adult, and I'm a mom.

As a mom, I try to keep my kid's experiences -- online and off -- free from negative imagery and things I don't think she's emotionally ready for (or hell, just things I think she could handle but which I'd rather she just didn't have in her brainspace anyway.) As such, if I have a reason to have concern about the content of a movie/book/website, I'm going to preview it before I invite my kid to share the experience. That's my job, as a mom.

I don't expect you, or anybody, to self-police your content or label it on the off chance that I'm asleep at the wheel. And that does mean sometimes, if my guard *is* lax, stuff slips through that maybe I'd have preferred she was not exposed to. But again-- that's not your job; that's mine.

(That being said... If content is going to go past the bounds of what societally we have delineated as 'socially appropriate*' -- lewd or prurient content, or exceedingly violent/graphic imagery, for instance -- if people cut tag or otherwise indicate that the content may be 'NSFW' or whatever, I appreciate it -- not just as a mom, but as an adult, so I can decide whether or not I want to cross that line along with the content provider myself.)

But again-- if we have to err I prefer we err on the side of freedom of expression, even if it means I have to work a little harder for my kid's protection, or get exposed myself to a few things I might rather just avoid.


*and yes, I know that's a grey area in terms of where that line is crossed.

[jerel.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but you're actually doing your job as a parent. If your kid looks at stuff she's not supposed to, you're not going to blame LJ. It's the parents who aren't doing their jobs that are most likely to be the troublemakers.

Most responsible users do cut-tag stuff and include ratings or NSFW labels.

[malinaldarose.livejournal.com]

I'm going to talk about taxes! And car repairs! And getting a plumber out at 4:30 in the morning! And cooking dinner from scratch! And paying the vet bills!

[creentmerveille.livejournal.com]

GAH!!!! ADULT CONTENT!!! MAKE IT STOP!!!!

*whimpers*

Must. Wash. Brain. Now.

[malinaldarose.livejournal.com]

*cackle* My work here is done.

[auryn29a.livejournal.com]

I just want to say I love your icon.

[malinaldarose.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[cissa.livejournal.com]

Yes!

And, for me, whingeing about menopause- and if that ain't an "adult concept," I challenge you to find something that IS.

[concordantnexus.livejournal.com]

Meep? Where did they say they were implementing mature content?

flagging? fuck them

can people flag my posts if they're friends locked?

does this mean LJ will be actively snooping my stuff if someone does flag a friends locked post? (as opposed to say waiting for an actual court order?)

[rubian77.livejournal.com]

There should be a message in your LJ "inbox" about it. http://www.livejournal.com/inbox/

No. Locked posts cannot be flagged.

It takes multiple flags for LJ to do anything about it - one here & there won't make LJ take notice.

Yes, still sucks on some levels and is stupid IMHO. I, for one, would rather have a "OMG Stupid l337 kidz who cant type!!!111" warning/flagging system than a "Mature content" setting. But that's just me. And I do this crazy little thing where I check out an infopage and read a few of the past entries before I decide whether to friend a person/comm, so I really don't need either one anyway. :)

[cissa.livejournal.com]

But... but...

I feel so much more INTERESTING now that I've flagged my journal as "adult concepts"!

Woez.

[amokk]

I'm flagging this post.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

Oh no, adult content flagged as adult content! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

I'm sorry, I just don't get the complaint. You don't want to see warnings? Enter your age and the problem is taken care of. Enter my age, I'm willing to share. You don't want to mark your journal as adult? Ok, you can mark it as kid-friendly, and just mark the actual posts that merit marking. My only problem with this system is that parents can't lock their kids journals into kid mode. That will change if we get a rash of not-adult content being reported and restricted as adult content, but I'm not aware of any yet.