She's right of course. However, LJ still did a crappy job on this one. They didn't just answer that the problem was "pressure from above" and "so sorry, but we have to draw lines that will allow us to stay in business"--they answered by 1) claiming that breastfeeding violated the then-rules because it was "explicitly sexual," and then 2) changing the guidelines to ban all nudity from default icons, not just "explicitly sexual nudity." Instant uproar, just add water. First they were wrong and insulting, and then they appeared to be wishy-washy and bowing to pressure. They'd have done much better to simply issue a notice of the change in rules, citing the recent changes in law, rather than starting by banning a particular icon and then backpedalling mightily to achieve a policy that made sense.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
phinnia says what I would like to, only with so much more .... persuasive rantiness.![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
She's right of course. However, LJ still did a crappy job on this one. They didn't just answer that the problem was "pressure from above" and "so sorry, but we have to draw lines that will allow us to stay in business"--they answered by 1) claiming that breastfeeding violated the then-rules because it was "explicitly sexual," and then 2) changing the guidelines to ban all nudity from default icons, not just "explicitly sexual nudity." Instant uproar, just add water. First they were wrong and insulting, and then they appeared to be wishy-washy and bowing to pressure. They'd have done much better to simply issue a notice of the change in rules, citing the recent changes in law, rather than starting by banning a particular icon and then backpedalling mightily to achieve a policy that made sense.
But then we would have missed a fine rant. :^)