Related Articles

17 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif

I’m not sure entirely what the fandom’s trying to accomplish here — incite the anorexics to rebel? You’d think they’d hold out for a group with a bit more staying power and that couldn’t be knocked over by a strong breeze. Share the pain? Possible. Expose the wiggle room that the TOS offers? So what? Under ideal circumstances 6A should interfere only when legally required, and as you noted in your previous posts, their corporate liability requires them to do so under specific instances that outside influences (in the interests of protectin’ the chilluns) are exploiting. So…they’re seeking to do the same thing to a disinterested party. It’s them exerting power in a system in which they feel they have none, wanting to be as strong as the people who wronged them.

But I have to admit, I’m looking forward to this. I honestly hope 6A picks up this gauntlet at some point, because we know whatever they do, whatever they want to do, they will do so in a laughably inept and excruciating matter, and it will be entertaining.

ReplyReply
mygif

“Expose the hypocrisy, or at least inconsistency, of 6A’s enforcement” would be my guess.

Thing is, even if 6A was to respond with blunt confirmation of fandom’s innuendos – “Yes, we are. So?” – it doesn’t really change anything. 6A will continue to do business as they see fit, and people will have to accept that or leave.

ReplyReply
mygif

“Expose the hypocrisy, or at least inconsistency, of 6A’s enforcement” would be my guess.

But the thing of it is thus: they aren’t being inconsistent at all. Existing law about copyright violation procedures and what constitutes child pornography is right there, as is what Livejournal will do if you tread into that area. The pro-anorexia group is pretty goddamned freakish, but they aren’t doing anything legally wrong, and the argument that they violate Livejournal’s TOS is fairly specious at best.

Those complaining really aren’t saying much more than “I liked this and LJ bans it and I dislike this other thing and LJ doesn’t do anything about them.”

ReplyReply
mygif

I agree in a lot of ways, but I think it belittles the intentions of a lot of people who aren’t at all related to fandom who were upset with SA’s actions, as well as the intentions of a lot of people who have been protesting the pro-ana comms for quite a bit longer than ‘two weeks’. I recall it coming up during the last kerfluffle, and back during Nipplegate as well. And I’ve seen it mentioned several times even when there isn’t an ongoing crisis. The bible-based baby beaters are a new one, at least as far as people being aware of them having communities on Livejournal, but the people who started the complaints about those have been trying to increase awareness about them for quite some time as well. Incidently, I’m not terribly interested in Eating Disorders myself, but even I found your suggestion that it is a simple ‘your word vs theirs’ debate as far as the damage of eating disorders a little distasteful. The communities in question are not about being thinner, they’re about being anorexic, hence the clever name. Whether you choose to believe the Journal of American Medicine constitutes a superior authority on the subject or not is up to you.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/22/2684

Yes, it’s hip and edgy to make fun of nerds with their dander up, but you’ve successfully completely glossed over a serious issue in an attempt to do so. Badly, at that. Two minutes on this thing called the internet could have given you a better choice of wording to work from.

ReplyReply
mygif

Just call me when people have this out of their system. It’s become so very, very stupid. If people want to protest being oppressed by The Man, the record industry is still RIGHT THERE waiting for them to eyeball their practices. It’s fucking Livejournal! It’s not as if they are the only provider of blog stuff. Bah.

So…tornado in Brooklyn! Freaky! Discuss.

ReplyReply
mygif

You know I’ve typed something similar up about 10 times and deleted it repeatedly. Maybe it’s my criminal justice background, maybe it’s the photography. I had no issue at all with the accounts that got whacked in the latest round. It wasn’t even done that ineptly! It was two accounts. TWO! This does not need an LJ News item. Clear, solid violations.

Just ARGH! Why did I get talked into starting blogging again…

*stomps off to mutter rudely about various things*

Oh, and loving the new digs. 😀

ReplyReply
mygif
blondegit said on August 10th, 2007 at 8:56 am

At the end of the day, arguments can be made that both the harry slash-types and the pro-ana communities have elements of creepy-fuckness about them.

Creepy-Fuck, however, does not constitute illegal.

I think if livejournal had just said “ok, you can’t use us for hosting illegal content and if you try we’ll ban you”, in the way that pretty much every other content provider seems to, there wouldn’t be such a problem. But in making themselves the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable, they open themselves up to such accusations of hypocrisy.

“You can post any non-illegal thing”

ReplyReply
mygif
blondegit said on August 10th, 2007 at 9:07 am

erk, sorry.. unwise use of arrows meant the end of the above post got eaten…

“You can post any non-illegal thing” is a sane and rational way to host content. It is non-judgemental and places responsibility for such decisions purely on the shoulders of the justice system. Admittedly, with the general weirdness of the DMCA, such a ruling might be considered unfair. But it enables 6A to neatly pass the buck. “sorry, we don’t make the laws.”

Compare and contrast to the current TOS, which states “You can post THIS non-illegal thing, but you can’t post THAT non-illegal thing”. This is pretty much the opposite. When you make such a statement, you open yourself up to accusations of hypocrisy and double-standard. The fans of the “bad” non-illegal thing will, quite understandably, want to know why they are the pariahs of the creepy-fuck world, whereas the “good” non-illegal thing doesn’t get a mention.

This is the sort of thing that happens when you start making judgement calls about the relative merits of creepy-fuckitude, which is precisely why most other content providers don’t make such a call.

ReplyReply
mygif

but the people who started the complaints about those have been trying to increase awareness about them for quite some time as well.

Which of course explains the massive dogpile? No, sorry, not buying it – I’ll grant that there is a small minority who have been attempting to get the community banned all along, but we’re talking about the majority here, and the majority are throwing a snit-fit.

Incidently, I’m not terribly interested in Eating Disorders myself, but even I found your suggestion that it is a simple ‘your word vs theirs’ debate as far as the damage of eating disorders a little distasteful. The communities in question are not about being thinner, they’re about being anorexic, hence the clever name.

The communities in question are – and it amazes me that they’ve got the sack to do it – trying to rebrand the word “anorexic” in a positive light, much as the gay community took back “queer.” I don’t think they’ll succeed, but that’s certainly what they’re doing – you can even see it mentioned in the comms in question multiple times. If you ask people on said communities “hey, are you trying to promote eating disorders?” they’ll tell you, no, they just want to promote responsible consumption (or something else like that). And then it does become their word against yours, because the people making the accusations can’t really prove anything.

ReplyReply

mygif
Jeff Scronce said on August 10th, 2007 at 12:29 pm

I don’t think that link about thinness and health meant what you think it meant. In fact, it even says, “Indeed, a number of studies show that thinness and weight loss (regardless of initial BMI) are associated with increased mortality rates.”

I don’t care one way or the other about pro- or anti-anorexic groups. You may want to change what you linked, though.

ReplyReply
mygif

Eww…
Not that I like the pro-anorexia people, but that’s just *nasty*. LJ’s behaviour recently has been silly and counterproductive (I suspect because of the mass exodus of the cat-photo posters to Facebook – but chasing off those people who provide Actual Content like yourself seems perverse – surely it would be better to rebrand LJ as The Thinking Person’s Social Network or something?) but when you’re the victim of that kind of behaviour there are two honourable options open to you – either fight the company through PR/legal means, or just say “well, fuck you then” and find some more congenial home for your journal.
This sort of behaviour is just… it’s as far from honourable as you can get. It’s appalling.

ReplyReply
mygif

I don’t think a lot of them are aiming for mature, just visibility. And some of them do care, and weren’t aware of certain complaints before. (You’re not the first person I’ve heard advise that fandom needs to sound more like an adult, though.)

I do wish the focus were more on “we want 1) a clear policy and 2) warnings.”

About the pro_ana thing … it’s possible that the “it’s not illegal to aspire to be thin” quote from that employee was her relating the pro_ana people’s argument as you just have. But it came off as LJ not taking anorexia seriously, which then causes a pile-on by more people trying to convince them that it is serious.

ReplyReply
mygif

Anorexia is not caloric restriction. Caloric restriction requires great care, careful measurement, and expert supervision. Anorexia is not eating to the point of death.

It’s the difference between being an illusion instruction/community site where escape techniques are discussed and possibly-dangerous acts are advocated with suitable warnings (“How-To” do a Houdini-esque escape involving chains and frigid water) and being a site that simply instructs the reader to tie weights to their feet and jump in the nearest lake. Advocating and recommending a possibly fatal course of action to persons who you know or reasonably should know will follow it without reasonable safeguards is negligent, possibly criminally so.

ReplyReply
mygif

It’s the difference between being an illusion instruction/community site where escape techniques are discussed and possibly-dangerous acts are advocated with suitable warnings (”How-To” do a Houdini-esque escape involving chains and frigid water) and being a site that simply instructs the reader to tie weights to their feet and jump in the nearest lake. Advocating and recommending a possibly fatal course of action to persons who you know or reasonably should know will follow it without reasonable safeguards is negligent, possibly criminally so.

This is an entirely fair and reasonable argument. I wish the hordes of Livejournalers complaining would make it.

ReplyReply
mygif

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Oh God Just Stop Already, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.

ReplyReply
mygif

I probably would have written exactly this article (less eloquently) about a month ago. That was before working with an Anorexic on a photography project and having that project evolve into an essay on Anorexia, itself. The problem that I see in this post is that it contains exactly the keywords and concepts that depend on an ignorance about what Anorexia is and why a Pro Ana site really is directly harmful to its members. Yes, there is proof that membership in a Pro Ana site results in a MUCH higher incidence in death.

When you consider the initial numbers, this becomes a legal nightmare: 2 – 7% of all people with eating disorders die from it. 18% of anorexics in a 20 year study and 20% of anorexics in a 30 year study die of starvation or complications directly attributed to anorexia. Eating disorders is the number one cause of death in women aged 15 – 24 and the number of women who die from it is larger than the number of 15 – 24 year olds that die from ALL OTHER CAUSES COMBINED.

When we say that membership in a pro ana group doesn’t just ‘increase’, but ‘greatly increases’ the incidence of death, then a question of responsibility does come up.

Think of it like this:

Hand a healthy 30 year old man a gun and tell him to shoot himself. If he does, he’s an idiot.
Hand a healthy 4 year old a gun and tell that person to shoot themselves. You’re in deep shit.
Hand a known crazy person a gun and tell that person to shoot themselves. Again, you’re in deep shit.

Hand a person with a psychological disorder that hinges dangerously on beliefs about the self and about the disorder, itself, the means to reenforce the beliefs that we know will ultimately kill them… The chain of events becomes nearly inevitable and the means of death — the vehicle of it — is the one that was provided to them. Provided by a liable party, if that party recognized the danger and chose to ignore it, it is negligence.

Anorexia is not about ‘deciding not to eat’. It is not, as the word suggests, ‘a loss of appetite’. Anorexics are consumed by hunger for the very food they are obsessed with denying themselves. Any body fat at all is a cause for deep emotional fear and self loathing similar to the irrational fear of heights that an agoraphobic person may experience. However, once the body loses a certain amount of weight, it shuts down. One grows fine, ‘protective’ hair on the skin. One loses their menstral cycle, which in turn causes osteoperosis, vaginismus and a host of other problems. Kidney and liver failure is next. Death follows. All through it, the anorexic feels genuinely ‘proud’ of their creation… of their ‘perfection’ which was achieved through hard work and a strong will.

‘Creepy’ was an interesting word. We are instinctively revolted by mental disease. We instinctively attack it and want to kill it. It is the runt of the litter. We don’t want to save a person from their bad decisions, because is it not merely a bad decision made by a consenting adult? A stupid idea? An idiot thing to say, that the world may be something that it is so patently not?

Allowing such communities to exist is an act of pure negligence at best. To do so knowing that it will result in death is wanton negligence.

ReplyReply
mygif

Yes, there is proof that membership in a Pro Ana site results in a MUCH higher incidence in death.

No, there isn’t. At best there’s evidence of correlation. The two aren’t the same thing, particularly when you get into a court of law, and that arena is most certainly the only one that matters to SixApart.

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments