(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong

cat_mcdougall
2006-05-20 02:09 pm UTC (link)

Alright, so this is the way it works;

Your default icon --the one that is used automatically when you post a comment/post unless you select a separate one-- cannot be offensive --as deemed by whatever person is defining it at the moment, or LJ TOS. Whichever. However, you can still have and use the "offensive" icon if you so choose. You don't have to take it down, just unclick it as "default."

That's correct, yes?

If it is, then I'm not understanding the problem.

Just... remember to use it when posting? Gods. It isn't that hard. *uses her DEFAULT icon*

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Someone correct me if I'm wrong

honorh
2006-05-20 04:59 pm UTC (link)

Okay, first of all, I'll come clean as totally being on the side of the Boob Nazis. My mother's a lactation consultant, so I pretty much grew up with the idea that there's nothing inherently obscene about the human breast.

That being said, I'm afraid the "default" thing makes even less sense than if they'd asked for all breastfeeding icons to be deleted. You can't have a breastfeeding icon as your default, but you could manually put the icon with every single post you make. Same effect, different word, and that's just fine and snifty, but making it "default" is somehow worse? Sorry, but no makee sense to me.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Someone correct me if I'm wrong

cat_mcdougall
2006-05-20 05:05 pm UTC (link)

I think it has to do with people clicking on private journals and seeing them on the main page? I agree it doesn't make much sense, and that there's nothing wrong with them, but if it's a legal thing to cover LJ's legal tail (how, I haven't any idea at all */not an intrawebz lawyer*) I don't see why it's such a big deal. Big deal as in why everyone is making the wank about it.

If those complaining just switched to a different default (meaning it doesn't show on their main journal) it'd all be over and done with and everyone can go on using their happy-go-lucky booby icons.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Someone correct me if I'm wrong april_hurst 2006-05-21 01:27 am UTC (link)
	nods That's the long and short of it, although some layouts allow the user to pick a different icon for a post (my two journals' layouts do) so a random journal run could still pull up some of my other icons. However, they don't show up on my userinfo. Then again, all my icons are work-safe, so I don't really care... (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Someone correct me if I'm wrong rekall 2006-05-20 05:34 pm UTC (link)
	I think it's because by allowing it but not as default it would limit the breastfeeding icons to comms devoted to breastfeeding. That way if someone accidently surfed on over to their LJ who was uncomfortable with that kind of stuff they wouldn't get offended. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Someone correct me if I'm wrong mookie 2006-05-20 05:35 pm UTC (link)
	It also shows the default icons of users instead of a list if you click on a common interests, so if Johnny Tweener and Boob Nazi General are both into DDR, and JT thinks it'd be a grand idea to see what other LJ users are into DDR, well there's Baby McSucky going to town on Mommy Milkshake. (Reply to this)(Parent)

smut_queen
2006-05-20 05:46 pm UTC (link)

The default rule does make sense to me, actually.

In a perfect world, underage users would stay out of adult communities and not friend journals of people posting adult content with adult icons. Posts made with adult icons would be locked so that the random teenager couldn't stumble upon it. So, in this hypothetical perfect world, where people appropriately cut-tag or f-lock adult content, an underage user or prude could avoid all sexuality explicit/violent/inappropriate icons & content as long as all default icons are safe for work. They couldn't come across content by doing an interest search or randomly clicking on a stranger's lj. So I'm all for this. It doesn't work so much in real life, because people are assholes, but.

I can see where they're coming from re: the actual breastfeeding icons, too. If I just have an icon with my boobs on it, they will (and I feel, should) tell me that I can keep it, but not as my default. If someone else has a similar icon with someone breastfeeding & boobs visible, they're kind of stuck. It is nudity. How can they tell me to un-default-alize my icon with nudity if someone else gets to keep theirs?

They're covering their asses, no semi-pun intended. If they have a blanket rule like no nudity in default icons, they have to enforce it, regardless of the context.

Also, yes, I know this is not a perfect world, and no, I don't work for lj.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	chibikaijuu 2006-05-20 06:38 pm UTC (link)
	The blanket rule is "no sexual content" not "no nudity". I'm sure they'd allow an icon of a famous nude sculpture. "...we require that your default userpic not contain anything too explicit. In particular, icons which are graphically sexual or violent in nature tend to be inappropriate for default userpics." (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mookie 2006-05-20 06:41 pm UTC (link)
	But then this goes back to hardvice's default icon which contained nudity (and it was art, if not famous) without any sort of sexual connotation. I'm thinking that they're defaulting (no pun intended) back to the "too explicit" part of that rule. (Reply to this)(Parent)

smut_queen
2006-05-20 06:43 pm UTC (link)

Re-read. The blanket rule is 'anything too explicit'. Sexuality & violence are brought up as examples.

I keep saying this and no one is listening: if it's not appropriate for me to have a picture of my boobs on an icon, it's not appropriate for me to have a picture of my boobs with a baby attached. Context isn't being attacked here.

If people want to get irate about something, there are a ton of REAL issues that should be dealt with, instead of everyone wasting their time whining about a site enforcing their own damn TOS.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mookie 2006-05-20 06:44 pm UTC (link)
	Damn straight. ~~Let's attack the real problem - those onesies at Target advocating formula over breastfeeding!~~ (Reply to this)(Parent)

chibikaijuu
2006-05-20 07:28 pm UTC (link)

But with the baby attached, you generally can't see the nipples, and that's usually what counts as "explicit". Hence, pasties-version Bea (which is infinitely more hilarious).

Of course there are more important issues - this just happens to be the one under discussion. (However, I do think the inability to view breasts as anything other than sexual *is* a worthwhile issue.)