monitrix

opting out of LJ's data mining

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 08:00:34 GMT

[insert blather re: LiveJournal's refusal to post news to their news community]

(Did you even notice they've got a new CEO? They announced it last Friday, but not in news. It's in lj_biz, except the comments have been deleted and disabled. You can find screencaps of the deleted comments in the preceeding lj_biz post or in the last news post. But I digress.)

How to opt-out of LJ's data mining:
1. Sign in and go to the Admin Console.
2. Type "set opt_exclude_stats 1" (without the quotes).

3. To exclude a community, a moderator must type "set for communityname opt_exclude_stats 1".

Here's the explanation.
Of course it's not in news. Because it's not an ad, I guess.

laughing at LiveJournal

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:53:38 GMT

Right-o. Check out the timeline for LJ's PepsiCo fiasco.

August 16, 2007

LiveJournal uses the news community to post an advertisement. It contains news of yet more impending advertisements in unavoidable formats.

Paid members and permanent members start filling up the comments. Many state that they specifically paid extra for the privilege of avoiding ads.

As part of the ad campaign, LJ announced that all accounts could send up to 10 Pepsi-sponsored v-gifts per week through September 15, 2007.

Angry people started lobbing the sponsored v-gifts back at official communities and employee accounts. Check out the v-gift pages at news, lj_biz, and barakb25, for starters.

August 16-21, 2007

Paid members start calling up credit card companies, demanding their money back since LJ refuses to provide ad-free service as promised.

Some people also start contacting Pepsi, directing them toward...unsavory...posts on LJ. These links are also included as messages in some of the v-gifts on high-profile userinfo pages.

August 21, 2007
Hooray for the the_lj_herald! They've collected the relevant source material for this next bit.

First comes this report from late morning, Pacific Time:
Paid and Permanent users will be able to opt out of receiving sponsored Virtual Gifts.

Five hours later, another report:
News Flash: sponsored content is gone

And then another:
All users will be able to opt out of receiving any Virtual Gifts. (There's more, but that's the big point.)

Here's the changelog post from even later that night:
[ljcom] r5365: New disable virtual gift options...

August 22, 2007
By the end of the business day, LiveJournal has yet to announce the new plans in a top-level post in news. They're not even hiding it in lj_biz. They're just plain hiding. *points and laughs*

"Wake up, people."

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:41:35 GMT

In my previous posts, I mentioned that LiveJournal's hiding policy discussions over in lj_biz. Their actual news community is now being used for advertising.

But that's not entirely fair. I have, in fact, gleaned news from that post.

From the comments, I learned that LiveJournal believes that "sponsorship is different from ads". That's why you can still see that entire news post even if you're a paid member. That's why you'll still be ~~stuck seeing~~ able to see the new mood theme even if you're a paid member. Because those aren't ads.

I possibly learned a reason for LiveJournal's bizarre *defense of pro-anorexia communities last week: playing nice for the new sponsored campaign.
*(Oh, that's a whole other headache. Maybe I'll type it up later to get it out of my system.)

The "news" post asked for reasons to send someone a brain in a jar. I learned that [warning: porn] even Diet Pepsi Max can be worked into pornography.

Try to understand. Pepsi's having a rough time here. I just now had to run to Google to find their latest tagline for my subject/title, and it didn't even ring a bell. So they need every bit of marketing help they can find.

Consider me insulted.

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 23:42:37 GMT

Okay, here goes.
Keep your eyes on the ball. I'll even number this for you.

1. Three days ago, LiveJournal posted an update regarding recent changes to its anti-obscenity rules.
Process Change for Non-Photographic Images

Once again, they're hiding this in lj_biz instead of posting it in news.

2. Remember when I mentioned that we're no longer allowed to link to obscenity? I linked to violet_quill's post, but I know I've seen similar posts elsewhere.

Her question specifically asked about linking to "prohibited content".

3. Here's a quote from the lj_biz post above. I've added the boldface.
"Many of you have asked about whether or not it is OK to link to outside content that falls into the category of child pornography, and the short answer is no, it's not OK."

4. I hadn't noticed anyone asking about child pornography, but LiveJournal keeps trying to drag it into the conversation. When I read that, I brushed it off as yet more aggravating spin. Other people decided they weren't going to ignore it any longer and wrote in with complaints.

One of these people, imaginarycircus, actually went a few email rounds on the topic with a LiveJournal staffer, rachel. That mind-boggling exchange is posted here.

It's possible that rachel honestly doesn't grasp the difference between "child pornography" and "any and all types of prohibited content". If that's the case, it's actually less of an insult.

The other possibility is that she does know the difference and is deliberately spinning the issue to make it look like she needs to stop me from engaging in child porn. Which, by the way, is not necessary on account of I'm not interested in taking part in such atrocities.

5. In that exchange, rachel-of-LJ-staff asked:
"When you say people feel insulted which "people" are you referring to? Can you classify them? What community feels insulted?"

6. So imaginarycircus set up an open letter, inviting insulted people to sign and be counted.

I'm on page 10 of the comments.

friendly warning: quit linking to pornography already

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:56:30 GMT

If you've missed the latest news, it's not surprising. LiveJournal has decided to avoid mention of their recent policy change in the news community -- you know, that one that's a default member of every account's friendslist.

They've hidden it by shunting it off to lj_biz. ("It" being their poor excuse for a discussion.)

What am I talking about?
I'm talking about LJ's recent decision to actually kick us out for obscene content.

So far, I've only heard of two examples: both visual (drawn), explicit sex scenes. Both *ponderosa121 and **elaboration were indefinitely suspended without warning. All their posts -- including comments in other people's journals -- are gone. All of it. From every one of their journals, regardless of each individual journal's content.

In multiple places, members have requested clarification of the new policy. LiveJournal employees have refused to set down clear rules and guidelines, answering only select questions and deflecting others with irrelevant non-answers.

In the face of no clear rules to follow, some people have chosen to remove potentially suspension-worthy content from LiveJournal. Again and again, they have asked if we're allowed to link to offsite obscenity. To my knowledge, violet_quill is the first one to have received a concrete answer on the subject.

From her journal (click for full response):

Is posting a link to prohibited content that is posted elsewhere going to receive the same punishment as it would if the prohibited content were posted on LiveJournal servers?

And this was the response:

In general, yes.

We now have precedent that LiveJournal will wipe all content posted from all your journals for a single obscenity offense.

Additionally, they have now decided that linking counts as an offense.

If you friends-lock, be very certain of your friends. Every post now has a "Report Abuse" link at the bottom of the page. Look down. See? Right there.

In summary: quit linking to yer filthy, filthy porn. Bad-bad-no.

* In case you're wondering, yes, I know how to mark LJ account names. On top of everything else, LiveJournal has changed the display for suspended/deleted accounts. No more little head with a strikethrough of the blue name.

** Ditto. [exaggeration] They're hiding the bodies. [/exaggeration]