(Post a new comment)

	wrongly_amused 2006-04-20 03:57 pm UTC (link)
	2. Employing and/or providing software programs, browser scripts, or other technologies that serve to block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages. Woah, what? Exactly how are they going to enforce that? I get the feeling this may be a reference to something else, just horribly mangled in the communication process. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	smut_queen 2006-04-20 04:16 pm UTC (link)
	I'm still convinced that it's not referring to Ad-blocking bits at all. I think they don't want you to sign up for a sponsored account and then alter your journal page so that the ads aren't actually there. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	thebratqueen 2006-04-20 04:20 pm UTC (link)
	nod That's how I'm parsing it. Which, whatever you feel about the ads, does make sense. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

freezer, 2006-04-20 04:49 pm UTC

(no subject) -

sisterelwood, 2006-04-20 06:10 pm UTC

(no subject) -

ladybirdsleeps, 2006-04-20 08:23 pm UTC

(no subject) -

mcity, 2006-04-20 10:30 pm UTC

	mistressrenet 2006-04-20 05:59 pm UTC (link)
	That's what it looks like to me too. (Reply to this)(Parent)

verpon
2006-04-20 04:39 pm UTC (link)

I had the same initial reaction when I read that bit. The first point is understandable and not necessarily all that bad but the second part no matter how much I read it and try to decipher a mangled other meaning, still seems to be saying something that is entirely unreasonable and unenforcable.

I mean, do they intend to make LJ simply not function properly on the various browsers with adblockers? I use a Mac and most of the browsers I know of have built in adblock functions which are awkward to get round if not impossible.

But I must stop before I splooge more.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	hallidae 2006-04-20 04:45 pm UTC (link)
	It doesn't look that way to me at all. I mean, unless they're going the popup route, the ads are imbedded in the LJ, right? So it looks more like they're saying not to trade programs that would let you alter the LJ so that the ads can't be seen. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

verpon, 2006-04-20 05:01 pm UTC

(no subject) -

nekoneko, 2006-04-20 05:07 pm UTC

(no subject) -

verpon, 2006-04-20 05:10 pm UTC

(no subject) -

the_wanlorn, 2006-04-20 10:03 pm UTC

(no subject) -

luthe, 2006-04-21 03:47 am UTC

(no subject) -

verpon, 2006-04-21 12:42 pm UTC

(no subject) -

luthe, 2006-04-21 04:14 pm UTC

(no subject) - dracothelizard, 2006-04-21 08:41 pm UTC

(no subject) - iwanttobeasleep, 2006-04-21 01:55 am UTC

(no subject) -

annabelle_lee, 2006-04-21 04:16 am UTC

(no subject) -

bobbypin, 2006-04-21 01:50 pm UTC

(no subject) -

annabelle_lee, 2006-04-22 12:47 am UTC

(no subject) -

verpon, 2006-04-21 06:55 am UTC

(no subject) -

fuzzytowers, 2006-04-21 12:32 pm UTC

(no subject) -

verpon, 2006-04-21 12:50 pm UTC

	adora_spintriae 2006-04-21 10:11 am UTC (link)
	They've actually posted a "Our Bad!" apology for that one. Apparently whoever they outsource their TOS writing to got a bit No-Adblock happy. The soon-to-be-coming new TOS will not have that in it (unless they're lying to us). (Reply to this)(Parent)

	gorogoro 2006-04-20 04:24 pm UTC (link)
	...upon further reading it may apply only to sponsored+ journal account holders? Ugh, confusion. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	iwanttobeasleep 2006-04-21 01:58 am UTC (link)
	The other journals don't have ads to block, so, yeah. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	A personal favourite verpon 2006-04-20 04:56 pm UTC (link)
	Click Livejournal will oppress the blind! (Reply to this)

sisterelwood
2006-04-20 06:07 pm UTC (link)

Dear LJ,

How do you plan on enforcing this? This is what we, in the legal profession, call 'symbolic policy'- it's there for looks but has no practically functionality at all. Congrats- you just made yourselves look even more stupid. Give yourselves a big round of applause. ^_^

In addition, you need to hire someone for public relations shit. This person could have in their hot little hands something like, I dunno, maybe a college degree in PR or some other related major because frankly you suck at communicating clearly with your clients.

No Love,
A Paid Account Holder

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	sisterelwood 2006-04-20 06:08 pm UTC (link)
	*PRACTICAL not practically (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Totally out of context, I'm sure... derumi 2006-04-20 08:29 pm UTC (link)
	1. Making journal style changes, customizations, or overrides that effectively block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on a Sponsored+ account's Content or other pages within the Service. Aw, crap. You mean I can't buy a paid account to avoid seeing the advertisements? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: Totally out of context, I'm sure... telesilla 2006-04-20 09:18 pm UTC (link)
	Last I saw they were saying that paid account users would never see ads. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Totally out of context, I'm sure... -

derumi, 2006-04-21 12:32 am UTC

Re: Totally out of context, I'm sure... -

annabelle_lee, 2006-04-21 04:43 am UTC

Re: Totally out of context, I'm sure... -

derumi, 2006-04-21 07:09 am UTC

	azarias 2006-04-20 09:32 pm UTC (link)
	Brad just posted a whoops, we fucked up; supposed to be an official news post about it later. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	kijikun 2006-04-21 12:31 am UTC (link)
	....Hell must be frezzing becuase they just admited they fucked up! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

derumi, 2006-04-21 12:33 am UTC

(no subject) -

photosinensis, 2006-04-21 01:15 am UTC

(no subject) -

azarias, 2006-04-21 03:10 am UTC

(no subject) -

ladybirdsleeps, 2006-04-21 04:05 am UTC

	annabelle_lee 2006-04-21 04:45 am UTC (link)
	I bet the news post will be full of 'LOL U DUMBFUCK' comments. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	didodiva 2006-04-20 10:52 pm UTC (link)
	What with the eight million paid features and all the people with paid accounts, why on earth would they need ads? Are they not doing as well finacially as they appear (or appeared, given the clutter littering the front page)? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	radiotrash 2006-04-20 11:57 pm UTC (link)
	I think even with all the paid users there are a ton of free users as well that eat of bandwidth and space, plus all the employees to pay and rent for their offices. So yeah, I can see why they'd need more money. I wouldn't be suprised if they did another permanent account run. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	greenling 2006-04-21 01:32 am UTC (link)
	It gives people an option to have a lot more usericons without having to pay, and supposedly is just to be a middle option. I can see why they might want a way to make money in exchange for hosting and loading more images, heh. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	naienko 2006-04-21 01:44 pm UTC (link)
	It's SixApart. Yes, I am biased. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	iwanttobeasleep 2006-04-21 01:52 am UTC (link)
	How dare LJ give them a free access? How dare they often to give them more services if they agree to do something completely benign? (Reply to this)

mochibuni
2006-04-21 07:49 am UTC (link)

While I'm not surprised by the wanking over the new option since I've seen a bit of it over how the adds mess up custom layouts, but I find most of the wanking pointless. I have yet to understand why the option of voluntarily allowing adds on your LJ for extra features = tewible, or why even the idea of such an option is the same as murdering kittens.

I also fail to understand why one of the users commenting is threatening to leave because when they agreed to a paid account, they didn't agree to the possibility of other users allowing adds on their LJs.

So much WTF that I can't wrap my head around it, or I have a very small head.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	mochibuni 2006-04-21 07:50 am UTC (link)
	-but in the first sentence. Woo. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	annaham 2006-04-21 08:01 pm UTC (link)
	LJ APOLOGIZED FOR SOMETHING?! No way. I must have wandered into an alternate universe this morning, somewhere between getting out of bed and getting into the shower. (Reply to this)