I came across a rather brain melting drama on Livejournal yesterday. A group of vigilantes went after Livejournal users for having some seriously sketchy 'interests.' For those unfamiliar with Livejournal, it's a blogging platform (like Blogger) with various social networking overtones. As well as running a blog, you can also develop social networks and participate in forums. Livejournal tends to be a bit more on the social (if sightly insular) side of blogging, with much of its focus on the social aspect. One the features that makes it easier for people to find you is 'interests' in a profile. When you set up and maintain your account you can add things you like. In mine I have 'radical aristocracy, depeche mode and morrissey.'
Some have more common interests, like cheese.
Now cheese, everyone likes cheese! If you like cheese, you could have a lot of friends. All you need to do is click on an interest with a link to locate other users who enjoy a bit of Cheshire with their crackers. Suffice to say, a Livejournal interest could be almost anything. And some other interests, like 'child love' and 'incest' are slightly less popular. Yet you could still list it and still locate other people who might be.... interested.... in the same thing.
Let's just set aside the fact that maybe you know, incest, isn't a great thing to have on your public interest list regardless of the type of said journal.
Let's just leave that over there on that table with the ceramic cat from Morecambe.
So, Livejournal has this publicly searchable directory for friend making and networking opportunities. Mr. Internet User can do a quick scan on the main page and find a reason to create their very own Livejournal. More users = more ad revenue right? And up until recently Livejournal has been pretty damned permissive when it came to what they allowed in the directory. Various communities and journals had interests like 'boy love' and Livejournal ignored it.
But then SueS, Gunny John and Miss Y, otherwise known as Warriors for Innocence came along and discovered this interest search function and were alarmed and outraged. Who are they? Why, they're a wonderful mish-mash of Internet detectives and vigilantes. They will single handedly burn perverts on the World Wide Web. They made note of people with interests considered 'illegal' and submitted them to Livejournal Abuse. In a way, rightly so, by having a public interest in something like rape, shock value or no, the users violated the terms of service.
Except, these lunatics probably didn't get many actual, physical child molesters in their little campaign. What they actually got was a bunch of fanfic writers, fans of certain Japanese publications that trample all over most expectations of good taste and survivor groups. The vast majority (guessing by the high pitched screeching all over Livejournal) appear to be older women obsessed with making Potter hairy before his time. Hardly the grooming pedos WFI were looking for.
Remember the thing on the table over with the ceramic cat? That's a little something called common sense. It really appears to be lacking on both sides here. How fan fiction communities or connoisseurs of Japanese comics ever believed that it was appropriate to publicize an interest in 'boy love' is seriously beyond me. There are about a million reasons I can think of not to have that on a publicly searchable directory. There aren't many reasons I can think of in the pro sense. All this outrage over free speech on both sides is bordering on comic tragedy. Neither side seem to understand that the way they conducted their activities was ineffective.
I'm glad of this. Personally I don't think the Internet should really be a place where you can publicly show off your fan fiction's darker side. There's a reason those books are 18 and over even when they have nothing to do with Harry Potter. Nor do I think people like Warriors for Innocence should be able to do their 'work' without at least a little understanding of those types of communities. Sadly, I doubt either one will get their after school special message. Livejournal, the corporation behind all this, appears to be the only sane party in this whole debacle. A rare, rare thing indeed.
5.30.2007
5.08.2007
Come on Barbie, let's go party. Uh, uh, uh yeahh.
I'm sure every female who's ever attended college already rehashed, chopped and fried up the impact Barbie has on women. From the teensy waist to the massive mammaries no other iconic bane of feminism inspires so much ire. Yet despite all those 1500 word essays on the negative impact Barbie and her freakish bastard ilk (see: Bratz, ewwww) have on women's general esteem, the pink one still reigns supreme in the hearts of many young ladies.
As a result of girly infatuation with the unlikely one, it was only a matter of time before the money hungry insectoids in Mattel's new product development department realized that like, girls use the Internet and stuff and that means more marketing data and possibly more MONEY. 'By God, that man in the Wall Street Journal says MySpace is incredibly popular... Think of the possibilities if we combined that with Barbie.' And thus the buzzing slave drones of Mattel (making the toy industry scary and not at all fun since 1100BC) proposed to merge the two, both elongating and strengthening the Barbie brand.
Barbie + MySpace = Barbie Girls.
We're transported into BGirls (geddit? Barbie + Girls=B Girls. IT WORKS ON TWO LEVELS) via a hideous Flash interface that works IE and sends Firefox sulking in the corner. Swirling flowers eventually give way to a 21st century bobble headed Barbie avatar luring you into B Girls. She promises that though the site is like in beta and stuff might change, that you'll have yourself some fun.
Predictably, fun in Barbie's world consists of fashion, games and chatting. Barbie is, after all, a fashion doll with a happy smile not darkened by anorexia, tabloids or Botox. A very fortunate couture model indeed. But even without fashion's seedy underbelly there's a definite bitter quality to an otherwise saccharine sweet portal. And that bitterness is probably way more of a concern than a negative rear view. How can parents be sure the site isn't overwhelmed by people who aren't 13 year old girls looking to meet....13 year old girls.
In response, Mattel wants you to know the safety of your princess it their utmost concern.... Or is it?
They start by telling the parents:
This aspect of the chat function probably protects young ladies from hearing about places the bathing suit covers and talk more appropriate for a bar. There's a slight amount of privacy invasion, but for the good of the girl. Whether this is to decrease Mattel's liability in case anything does happen or because they genuinely fear the hordes of drooling pedos stalking the Internet, it's a bonus. MySpace certainly doesn't have that function.
Blocking and reporting functions are obviously there for more than some other girl thinking her Wheelies are slightly out of date. It's all about that kind of odd one over there insisting on photos or wondering when her parents are out of town. Good move, presuming the mods are up and alive. Little Jessica can point and click predators away into prison, just like that.
But there's more under the Privacy Policy (which links back to the Hot Wheels Collector site) which goes against all those positive bits above:
I'm hoping this is just an oversight with using the same guidelines as another website. If not, it could mean bad things. Though they say they'll monitor chats between girls they also say they won't. The negatory statement in a deep dark place where not many people would think to look. So which one is it?
Mothers still entrance little girls with Barbies and subsequently fill the coffers of their dealers high on their mound of doll heads. As a result, you'd think they have a responsibility to create a safe place for their client base to spend money. It makes sense morally and economically. If you're going to brave the wilds of the pervert filled Internet, you'd better damn well have the perimeter guarded. Yet Mattel has a Privacy Policy on two of its sites geared toward little ones that precludes them from taking any pro-active action against predators, even though they make outward promises to parents they will. The product development midges may have created a way for them to get away with not doing what they explicitly promise, to save money or overhead, whatever. I'm not positive but this strikes me as being a case of one manicured hand giving while the other taketh away.
Siniseter or not, if I'd birthed some little ones of the Barbie appreciating age (and they'd finally rebelled against my insistence that Soduku is just as fun) I'd definitely wait until that Privacy Policy changes. It smacks of a rather untrustworthy scheme that may leave your precious treasures a little bit more vulnerable.
As a result of girly infatuation with the unlikely one, it was only a matter of time before the money hungry insectoids in Mattel's new product development department realized that like, girls use the Internet and stuff and that means more marketing data and possibly more MONEY. 'By God, that man in the Wall Street Journal says MySpace is incredibly popular... Think of the possibilities if we combined that with Barbie.' And thus the buzzing slave drones of Mattel (making the toy industry scary and not at all fun since 1100BC) proposed to merge the two, both elongating and strengthening the Barbie brand.
Barbie + MySpace = Barbie Girls.
We're transported into BGirls (geddit? Barbie + Girls=B Girls. IT WORKS ON TWO LEVELS) via a hideous Flash interface that works IE and sends Firefox sulking in the corner. Swirling flowers eventually give way to a 21st century bobble headed Barbie avatar luring you into B Girls. She promises that though the site is like in beta and stuff might change, that you'll have yourself some fun.
Predictably, fun in Barbie's world consists of fashion, games and chatting. Barbie is, after all, a fashion doll with a happy smile not darkened by anorexia, tabloids or Botox. A very fortunate couture model indeed. But even without fashion's seedy underbelly there's a definite bitter quality to an otherwise saccharine sweet portal. And that bitterness is probably way more of a concern than a negative rear view. How can parents be sure the site isn't overwhelmed by people who aren't 13 year old girls looking to meet....13 year old girls.
In response, Mattel wants you to know the safety of your princess it their utmost concern.... Or is it?
They start by telling the parents:
Our sophisticated word filter keeps this chat appropriate for girls and prevents personal information — such as your child's name, phone number, and address — from being given out to anyone unknown to you.
(For instance, numbers and spelled-out numbers get blocked, so a user can't give out street addresses and phone numbers.) Additionally, our filters prevent otherwise acceptable words from being combined to create inappropriate words or phrases.
If someone ever makes her feel uncomfortable, she can let us know by clicking that user's character and selecting "report." When a user is reported, we can review the chat at the time of the incident, monitor the offending user, and determine whether further action is required. Any users attempting objectionable behavior can be banned from the site.
This aspect of the chat function probably protects young ladies from hearing about places the bathing suit covers and talk more appropriate for a bar. There's a slight amount of privacy invasion, but for the good of the girl. Whether this is to decrease Mattel's liability in case anything does happen or because they genuinely fear the hordes of drooling pedos stalking the Internet, it's a bonus. MySpace certainly doesn't have that function.
Blocking and reporting functions are obviously there for more than some other girl thinking her Wheelies are slightly out of date. It's all about that kind of odd one over there insisting on photos or wondering when her parents are out of town. Good move, presuming the mods are up and alive. Little Jessica can point and click predators away into prison, just like that.
But there's more under the Privacy Policy (which links back to the Hot Wheels Collector site) which goes against all those positive bits above:
Mattel may elect to offer community features on this Website, such as message or bulletin boards, forums, and chat rooms. In such events, Mattel will not assume any obligation to monitor, filter, censor, edit, or regulate information or content provided by you or third parties on this Website, although Mattel reserves the right to do so in its sole discretion.
I'm hoping this is just an oversight with using the same guidelines as another website. If not, it could mean bad things. Though they say they'll monitor chats between girls they also say they won't. The negatory statement in a deep dark place where not many people would think to look. So which one is it?
Mothers still entrance little girls with Barbies and subsequently fill the coffers of their dealers high on their mound of doll heads. As a result, you'd think they have a responsibility to create a safe place for their client base to spend money. It makes sense morally and economically. If you're going to brave the wilds of the pervert filled Internet, you'd better damn well have the perimeter guarded. Yet Mattel has a Privacy Policy on two of its sites geared toward little ones that precludes them from taking any pro-active action against predators, even though they make outward promises to parents they will. The product development midges may have created a way for them to get away with not doing what they explicitly promise, to save money or overhead, whatever. I'm not positive but this strikes me as being a case of one manicured hand giving while the other taketh away.
Siniseter or not, if I'd birthed some little ones of the Barbie appreciating age (and they'd finally rebelled against my insistence that Soduku is just as fun) I'd definitely wait until that Privacy Policy changes. It smacks of a rather untrustworthy scheme that may leave your precious treasures a little bit more vulnerable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
