August 2015


Layout By


Powered by InsaneJournal
Previous | Next

This is an interesting site which lists the reports to the Better Business Bureau about Six Apart/Livejournal's sucktastic customer service since Memorial Day, and the response which Six Apart's lawyer has deemed to give.

The attorney's response?
All the people that got banned were pedophiles/criminal. Also, what are you talking about, TOS violations?

ETA: A summary of a recent 9th District case, which pretty much says that NO, companies can't change the ToS without notifying the user base. There is a need for clarification, in that this doesn't seem to directly address those ToS already agreed to that HAS that "sign your life away" aspect of things. However, the timing of this is RIGHT before the second round of LJ/6A Insanity broke out. If this is why LJ/6A is holding out, they're still morons...they're just morons with an eye on a possible ruling that could bring a whole round of class action on their asses.
Amazingly, if this is the case, I applaud LJ/6A for not making changes until this matter gets settled in the Ninth District.
It doesn't save them from the simple fact that they simply aren't TELLING anyone this, and that their customer service has been sucktacular as well as paranoid in the extreme.
A breakdown of exactly what the court case could mean. Notice the discussion about online/interactive websites, in being able to notify your user base with a mass email. Amazingly SIMPLE ain't it?
Also, it points out that changes to POLICY isn't generally something that people need to be notified of (but its still good customer service). It does state (page 4) that generally notifying your userbase of changes made to policy is a good idea anyway, to avoid "running afoul" of the various laws and commissions out there. They say this concerning Privacy Policies, and not the DCMA/Takedown policies, but...Given the scenario of an artist posting to an FLocked post, on their own journal, couldn't they...yanno...expect that level of privacy?
Essentially, when LJ/6A goes in with the banhammer, they're gathering information about you, for the purpose of deleting/suspending/permabanning, and once they do that, the public starts to know. They've used your data, in a way I'm assuming you wouldn't agree to. Hopefully one would keep a professional journal separate, but if words gets out that you were banned for *insert reason*, then isn't that a violation of your privacy?
Nevermind the libel and defamation aspects of it. Everybody is going to be up and in your face, wondering why YOU were banned. Sure, its easy to turn off the computer, but when the banhammer is being swung with the overused cry of "CHILD PORN!!"...
Well, let's just say I'd be a little more than pissed off if LJ/6A decided to label me as such.