|
|
elfwreck (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} elfwreck) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} fandom_wank,@ 2010-06-10 06:28:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Youthwank: LJ is protecting children!
Livejournal decided to tag 
fanficrants as may contain explicit content, which means that nobody logged in as under 18 can see the posts. People logged out can see them, and click the "Yes I'm 18" button—but ffrants doesn't allow anon or non-member commenting. Officially, it doesn't allow sockpuppets, either.
The wank is playing out in a couple of posts at ffrantsrants
jinxy_sama is surprised anyone's upset:
I thought it already was marked Explicit Adult Content. I have to say I find it surprising that so many of you who so vehemently disapprove of loli/shouta ... would not dissuade actual underage individuals from creating socks or moving to DreamWidth in order to view content inappropriate for children, ie. rape, bdsm, a myriad of different kinks, explicit smut, etc, etc. With the comm in such disarray over the inability of minors to partake, maybe it's a good thing LJ took the reigns."Several people point out that "not wanting kids to read x-rated fanfic" is not the same as "not wanting kids to read ranting about fanfic, some of which is x-rated." It's also pointed out that some of the "minors" now being excluded are legal adults in their countries of residence.
But, she continues, sending a lemon to a person under the age of consent via email constitutes corruption of a minor, which, if prosecuted by a parent, could land someone in jail. That's not wank, it's fact. (Plz to ignore the total lack of any such prosecutions in the history of the internet. It's fact that it could happen!)
Yeah, says
izzanami, you think telling kids to go to DW to see things ADULTS get triggered and squicked by is alright? You may think that sex should be an open subject for children (and I think it should be), but unless YOU are their PARENT, it doesn't matter.(All arguments are more persuasive with some words in caps. Really.)
Jinxy says "it should be up to the minor in question's parent/guardian to decide what they deem suitable for their children's eyes, not any random person on the internet."
(LJ's staff is, of course, not "any random person on the internet." You *know* they polled the parents of every minor on that comm.)
Izza brings on the Special Logic: Even though *she's* an enlightened and sensible parent who doesn't believe in hiding the existence of sex from kids, it's totally reasonable for LJ to take a stand against it, because not every parent agrees with her, and *of course* policies should be based on the most hysterical parents' wishes.
Buried in the (mostly frozen now) subthreads are bits about how LJ is only protecting itself from lawsuits (which nobody is admitting has nothing to do with whether or not the content is dangerous for children), and speculations about the real purpose/intent of the "May Contain Explicit Content" tag: "Once a comm has even one entry marked as explicit it's supposed to be marked as 'may' contain explicit adult content, that "may" part is very important."—because once a comm. has a single locked-to-adults post, no minors should be allowed to join that comm.. Riiiiight.
Also includes tangential wank about whether FFR does, or does not, disapprove of loli. IDEK.
jadedissola explains the whole situation to an unhappy 15-year-old: But we have to protect you from reading about such naughty things, otherwise you might get IDEAS and you might start thinking about trying this S-E-X thing for yourself! Clearly, without all this talk of sex, you'll never think of trying it on your own/fantasize about celebrities! What's worse, you might get the idea that sex is something to be enjoyed, maybe even celebrated! You need to understand that sex can KILL YOU (or at least give you babies).
Try again in three years when, magically, you become an adult overnight and suddenly your brain will be capable of handling all these grown-up ideas.
