Account is back on

[jay]

No, I wasn't asserting any moral superiority... nor do I particularly have a side in the breastfeeding debate, we supplemented our three. And yes, given that I have a permanent account, Six Apart stood to lose nothing by my departure.

IMO, it was about them pre-censoring content on behalf of external conservative social or religious pressures... and greater participation equalled more counter-pressure, and it didn't cost me much, so why not... Anyway, I don't care what people use as their default icons, it should be their choice (not mine, Jerry Falwell's or their blog service's).

Comments

[datagoddess.livejournal.com]

it should be their choice (not mine, Jerry Falwell's or their blog service's).

Wow, so you don't think that a business has the right to set limits on how a service that they provide is used? How did you get around agreeing to the TOS when you created your account?

[weirdodragoncat.livejournal.com]

Businesses do have that right....within the law. They dropped the ball here. In CA, where they are based, breastfeeding and related imagery is protected by law.
and btw....the TOS did not (I'm assuming here) reflect this discriminatory new policy when his account was created.

you might want to tone the critical tone to your comment down a bit (just a suggestion).

[datagoddess.livejournal.com]

The TOS hasn't changed through all of this, just the FAQ was changed to clarify. And when the TOS is changed, users are given the choice of agreeing to it or removing their account.

And I think if Jay has an issue with my tone he can take it up with me himself, neh?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Given the ambiguities in the TOS, and the previous non-enforcement, IMO the FAQ changes were actually a retroactive contract-change-by-stealth on SA's part in order to cover/avert responsibility for their own screwups in how they reacted.

And yes, there are times when you tone and language sounds to me like "I hate you!" when all you actually meant was "I want to discuss this", but I've long since shrugged it off as mostly due to cultural and language differences. I believe that you're mostly friendly, even if you come off as IMO combative at times.

[datagoddess.livejournal.com]

They've always enforced it. The caveat is that the icon in question has to be brought to LJ Abuse's attention before they do anything about it, because they don't randomly troll through journals looking for TOS violations.

This started because someone got nailed for a topless icon and decided to go over to boob_nazis and start turning in people there. Now that's one hell of a troll.

And you know I don't hate you. I sometimes get exasperated with things you say, or don't realize how I sound when replying, but if I hated you, or was really angry, I either wouldn't post it in LJ and take it to email or just not say anything.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Yeah, if there were a "troll hall of fame" this episode might qualify that guy...

Sorry, but I don't buy selective, random past enforcement of (old FAQ) sexually-explicit default icons as "always enforced it" regarding all forms of nudity, including photos of Roman statues and Renaissance paintings. SA/LJ are way out on a limb, unreasonably far past cultural or community standards, and are IMO just digging themselves deeper.

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

Wrong. Breastfeeding in public has to be accomodated under California state law. Breastfeeding imagery does not have to be, as far as I can tell, and I have been all over the Cal Codes on this.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'd say that businesses don't have unlimited and arbitrary rights to change the limits on how their services are used. The phone company can *try* to change their TOS to preclude me from having voice conversations with others about religion, say, but I'm likely to ignore those changes and fight back if any attempt is made to cut off my phone service because I called a friend about next week's Bible study group... likewise, Ford could try to take back my 2004 Freestar if they changed their sales contracts retroactively to require all users of their products to drive under posted speed limits, but they'd certainly wind up in court if/when they tried to enforce it.

[datagoddess.livejournal.com]

Actually, the phone company is still considered a utility in most places, and there are strict rules on what they can and can't require or enforce, so that's a bad example. Ford provides a product, not a service, and you have both signed a contract detailing the terms of that agreement.

It's a little different with ongoing unregulated services. They do have the right to provide services based on their own choices, within the law. And if a change is made after the service is used, the user's choice from that point forward is to either use the service in accordance with the TOS of the company or not use the service.

So, yes, unless they are regulated by some government entity (like utilities, broadcast stations, etc) they do have the right to change the terms of service when there is no pre-existing contract saying they can't. The TOS states that they can change the TOS at their discression.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

While they can certainly change the TOS at their discretion, doing so through retroactive FAQ changes leaves SA looking like incompetent idiots here. And large companies often place non-enforceable provisions in contracts, trusting in their deeper pockets (relative to customers') to protect them from having those provisions overturned in lawsuits. Customers have little enough power individually as it is, they can certainly band together to protest stupid corporate policy changes.