And still, it's unsatisfactory, because of course they are going to apologize. What worries me is the leverage that WFI have found and used, and how LJ has caved in and messily so. If such a report (of journals soliciting criminal activites) is made, shouldn't LJ quietly investigate first, then if cause for concern is found, report to the proper law enforcement group? In order, you know, to actually apprehend criminals and not just send them underground?
Well, some of the suspended journals do seem to have belonged to paedophiles advocating abuse of children, and possibly were used as networking to commit child abuse. But some of the suspended journals (by most recent count at least half, and some are still being investigated for content by LJ) most certainly didn't fit that pattern and were actually thoroughly unobjectionable.
Quietly reporting suspect journals (after actually checking the content to see if they did promote child abuse) to the relevant authorities would have been the best way to react. Failing that, suspension of those journals, but again only after actually checking the content. What shouldn't have been done is exactly what LJ did - mass deletions based simply on listed 'interests'. It was thoroughly sloppy of them, but they've paid a price for it, I think.
Yes, they should. I suspect that if the same situation arises again LJ will act in a very different manner and that they certainly won't institute mass deletions without checking for content.
Hopefully they've learned and painful (and expensive) lesson.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 31 May 2007 11:54 (UTC)What worries me is the leverage that WFI have found and used, and how LJ has caved in and messily so.
If such a report (of journals soliciting criminal activites) is made, shouldn't LJ quietly investigate first, then if cause for concern is found, report to the proper law enforcement group? In order, you know, to actually apprehend criminals and not just send them underground?
no subject
Date: 31 May 2007 12:49 (UTC)no subject
Date: 31 May 2007 20:56 (UTC)Quietly reporting suspect journals (after actually checking the content to see if they did promote child abuse) to the relevant authorities would have been the best way to react. Failing that, suspension of those journals, but again only after actually checking the content. What shouldn't have been done is exactly what LJ did - mass deletions based simply on listed 'interests'. It was thoroughly sloppy of them, but they've paid a price for it, I think.
no subject
Date: 31 May 2007 20:51 (UTC)Hopefully they've learned and painful (and expensive) lesson.