(lj) Preserving content and system integrity

[enot06]

Запостила предложение в suggestions.

С большим удоволствием отослала бы жалобу на потерю контента в SixApart, кто бы подсказал, куда. Это не жалоба в АТ, это, скорей, жалоба на АТ, но хрен с АТ, я перевела это из сферы отношений в сферу технических проблем с сервисом.



DETAILS

Brief description
In case the journal is suspended because of objectionable post(s), hide posts in question and leave other livejournal posts of suspended user accessible.

Full description
In case the journal is suspended because of objectionable post(s), hide posts in question and leave other livejournal posts of suspended user accessible according to the rules established by suspended user (public / friends-only etc.).
1) This will prevent from broken links from other journals
2) This will allow to keep discussion with suspended journal owner in other (active) journals intact
3) This will allow to preserve content in the form of comments produced by users whose journals are not suspended in suspended journal (we talk about posts that were not questioned and were not the reason for suspension).

An ordered list of benefits
1. Preventing from broken links from other journals.
2. Keeping discussion with suspended journal owner in other (active) journals intact and meaningful.
3. Preserving content in the form of comments produced by users whose journals are not suspended in suspended journal (I talk about comments to the posts that were not the reason for suspension).

An organized list of suggestions for implementation
1. No new development is required to keep the content of suspended livejournal accessible.
2. New functionality, that prevents suspended user from posting, has to be developed or enabled.

Comments

[dyak.livejournal.com]

Предполагаю, что они этого не делают, потому что это можно с натяжкой интерпретировать как редакторский контроль за содержимым журнала, т.е. как соавторство в неком смысле, что в свою очередь может увеличить их ответственность за содержимое журнала. С упором на "предполагаю".

Припоминаю, что на Продиджи они фильтровали мессаджи на предмет приличности и прочего плохого и залетели на ответственность за клевету, которую некто туда ставил и которую они пропустили сквозь фильтры –– с логикой суда типа "прочел, одобрил, значит отвечаешь". Смутно припоминаю, впрочем.

[dyak.livejournal.com]

Или это была не клевета, а ложь про какую–то компанию с целью манипулирования ценой ее акций, что–то такое.

I won't agree

[enot.livejournal.com]

Currently AT requests to remove or edit "post in question" and if their request is not satisfied, they suspend the journal. This means they accept responsibility for making a decision that the "post in question" is indeed objectionable. In fact, sometimes they have no idea, but this is beyond the point.
I'm suggesting they proceed as follows: ask to remove / edit the objectionable post (same as they do now) and if their request is not satisfied, suspend (hide) the post in question instead of suspending the whole journal. If they absolutely must suspend the user and not just the "post in question", they may prevent the user from posting moving forward but leave the existing content available.
But I'm not asking AT to change their policies, I'm asking for technical improvement. The owner of LJ, SixApart, ha the right to do whatever with your content. For business reasons they won't do it, or may be they would later, or they decide to sell the audience to Microsoft or whoever. But it's not up to AT to decide whether the regular content should be made unaccessible and whether the content created by "good citizens" could be removed as a side-effect of their rightful activity.

Re: I won't agree

[dyak.livejournal.com]

Это верно, но если рассматривать журнал целиком как единый текст из многих постов одного юзера, то, убрав его часть, они как–бы стали соавторами оставшегося в отличии от закрытия всего. Разница, признаю, довольно призрачная, но спугнуть их вполне могла.