![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
More on LJ deletions
They just posted that fandom and fiction LJs that were deleted will be restored. Good news!
On the other hand,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
innocence_jihad collected a list of deleted journals and comms in this post. A quick glance down the list shows the freaking huge number of unnecessary deletions (they're the ones with no strikethrough).
Oh, boy, did they screw this one up!
On the other hand,
innocence_jihad collected a list of deleted journals and comms in this post. A quick glance down the list shows the freaking huge number of unnecessary deletions (they're the ones with no Oh, boy, did they screw this one up!
no subject
no subject
Actually, yes. The abuse volunteers were, as far as I've been able to tell, bypassed on this one. Many of them are in fandom and could have helped LJ avoid this PR disaster.
Based on my experience (I worked on the abuse team for an ISP, many years ago now, checking reported pedo groups on Usenet and suchlike) the best way to do this for a site as huge as LJ is probably volunteers, bound by a code of practice and with a consensus of at least five people with different interests required for a deletion. It's doable; you just need good management, and a clear, transparent appeals process. (Neither of which LJ have, obviously. But they used to...)
no subject
no subject
It's possible. Though given the source of the list, it's certain that all of the listed journals and comms were those reported by WFI as "pedophile" journals. Given the inconsistent way in which LJ implemented its purge (despite what they say, it couldn't have been interest-based, as many LJs with the trigger keywords remained active) it's extremely likely that the list is accurate.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
If you really want an answer, read Folk Devils and Moral Panics by Stanley Cohen. It's an old book, about the Punk movement in the 1970's, but basically it describes the way society picks something to demonise and then totally overreacts to it. Once you see the pattern, you'll see it happening over and over again.
Right now, it's all about "protecting the children", and because it's children any dissenting voice (like mine) is automatically labelled evil. But even normally reasonable folks miss the point that nearly all child abuse happens at home, within the family. The occasional cases of child abduction hit the headlines because they are rare. Does that make them less horrible - no, of course not. But denying thousands of people the right to even think about it does nothing to protect a kid from her daddy or uncle or grandfather, who no one will report to the cops because the rest of the family will hate you for it.
Silence is what endangers the children. Not letting people talk, discuss and yeah, even fantasise.
This witch-hunt is no different from our political leaders slaughtering 65,000 innocent Iraqi civilians (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) in revenge for something planned by 30 men at most.
Yes, we should punish people who have harmed children, and we should prevent those who actively intend to do harm from getting to do it. But we shouldn't persecute people who have done no harm only because we don't understand them. Whether we like it or not, they are human and therefore entitled to human rights.
< / soapbox >