Some of you might be interested in more detailed explanation of our stances on various issues surrounding sponsored communities. The previous post described what we're going to require of our sponsors, and we wanted to make those points clear without bogging them down in explanations and justifications. If you're interested in reading some more of the logic about this, or if you have questions about details that weren't covered by the previous post, then this post is for you. :)
* Commercial Activity: Our policy has always been that limited commercial activity confined to an individual journal or community is acceptable; they can't post clickthrough links, user-provided banner ads, and things of that nature. This allows users to do things like create individual "selling journals" for their crafts, for instance. And if someone wants to create a journal dedicated to how great their Gerbil Sweaters are, and you can buy one for $8, well, more power to them.
However, this particular portion of the Terms of Service also gives us the ability to grant permission to engage in commercial activity on a case-by-case basis. This is how we're going to do this: we will be more strictly enforcing this policy for bigger business ventures (for example, ones that obviously turn over a million dollars in revenue); we're not going to allow them to engage in any commercial activity on LiveJournal unless they go through us. This allows us to hold them to the same guidelines we're holding all other sponsored communities to, and it means that you won't be surprised by the actions a community is taking. (It also gives us recourse in the event that a communiy *does* do something we wouldn't allow an officially-sanctioned sponsored community to do.)
* Community Invites and Spam: Although sponsored communities do enjoy many of the same permissions that regular communities do, we're going to be very strict about how they interact with users. In particular, we're going to specifically prohibit them from sending out community invites (although maintainers of other communities can still do so). We're also not going to allow them to initiate any sort of contact with you outside of their community; this means that you won't get comment spam inviting you to join a sponsored community. (If you get comment spam from any user or community, you can delete it and mark it as spam and we'll take action against them.)
* Visibility to Users Logged-out, Basic, and Plus users will see these communities highlighted on the main LJ page and in interest searches. All users will be able to see these communities and participate. They're not going to be 100% invisible to you (you may see them on your friendsfriends page, for instance). We also changed the icon to make it clear that you're looking at a sponsored community (and we'll change it again to address the concerns you brought up in the comments to that post). The community's profile and layout will also clearly designate the communities as sponsored communities. We recognize that some people don't want to interact with these communities at all, so we'll do what we can to minimize that.
* Placement in Interest Searches If you're a paid or permanent account holder, sponsored communities won't get "priority listing" in interest searches. You'll probably still see them amidst the other results, though. They're still legitimate communities -- whether they're run by a company or run by a fan, they get equal access to being listed in an interest search. (They'll be distinguished with a different icon, though, just as they are elsewhere in the site.)
* Access to User Data I honestly have no idea where this rumor came from, but to be clear: we will never compromise the security of your protected or private content under any circumstances, unless we're legally obligated by law (that is, unless we get a court order). To that end, we're not going to give sponsored communities -- or any other communities -- access to anything they can't already see in your journals. We're not going to sell them your email address, either. (We can't prevent them from seeing what's already public, though, but we're not going to help them do so, either.) Let me repeat that, though, because it bears repeating: no advertiser or sponsor is going to get access to your protected content.
Also, because I know some people brought this up: we have very strong security precautions in place to prevent anyone -- sponsored community or not -- from entering in malicious code into their journal styles to gain access to your account or content. If we find that anyone -- again, sponsored community or not -- is exploiting a security hole, we will close that security hole and we'll take aggressive action against the person or persons who took advantage of it.
* Usernames We're very clear with companies that are interested in creating sponsored communities when they let us know which username they'd like to use for their community. We let them know that our namespace is limited, and that their requested username might not be available. We're not going to "eminent domain" a username for an advertiser, especially not if someone's actively using that account. We might ask a user to see if they're willing to give up their username (and offer a free rename token, of course), but ultimately the decision rests with the owner of the journal, not with the advertiser.
* Anti-advertiser content One of our core principles is that of free expression. We're privately held, and so we don't have to offer a great deal of freedom, but it's something that every single one of us believes very strongly in. If a company wants to promote something on LJ, they don't get the privilege of "censoring" anything they don't agree with. However -- just like any other community -- they're welcome to run their communities as they wish. This does mean that they can delete comments or entries that they don't want in their sponsored community. (This is no different than the maintainer of a community about bundt cakes deleting entries that describe how to knit sweaters for gerbils or deleting entries that talk about how awful bundt cakes are; that's at his or her discretion.)
To be clear: Unless an account is already in violation of our Terms of Service, we will not take down journals, communities, or content that is offensive or objectionable to a sponsor. They are aware (and still want to advertise here) that users can write anything that they want. What's permissible on this site is governed by the policies we've had for years, not our advertisers. Their position as a sponsor doesn't give them extra "clout" in that respect.
* Fandom Someone asked that we specifically address this, so: Along the same lines as the previous bullet point, we're not going to "shut down" fandoms or RPGs just because a sponsor said they wanted them shut down. We find that idea repulsive. However, we are (and have always been) legally obligated to act if we receive complaints indicating that someone is violating copyright or infringing on a trademark. This is a long-standing practice; we *have* to do this to avoid getting into legal trouble.
That said, we also enjoy legal freedoms by not actively seeking this sort of thing out -- a sponsor can't ask us to search for all communities of a given fandom so they can report them to us. If they want to do that, they have to do it on their own; we can't and won't help with that. So ultimately, our existing policies on copyright and trademark aren't going to change if a sponsor is on LJ; if they want to report icons or screencaps, the copyright holder will always have a legal right to do so. We're neither going to encourage them to do that, nor are we going to discourage them, either. LiveJournal needs to remain neutral in this type of situation, due to existing United States laws. We still have to enforce these laws whether or not we have sponsored communities.
We understand your fears about having your fandoms disrupted by large media corporations, and so we want to make this clear: just because they've paid us money doesn't mean that corporations will have any extra rights or leverages to censor what you do as a part of fandom. I know a lot of people are worried that they'll "find you" and destroy your communities that way, but their having a community here doesn't give them any extra visibility into LJ; they're "in your neighborhood", yes, but the guildelines we're making with them make it clear that we don't want them interfering with established communities in ways that everyone can agree would be disruptive.
* Sock Puppet Accounts We don't want advertisers to "trick" you in any way; to that end -- and this hasn't been a problem (but there have been suspicions and questions) -- we're going to ask them to clearly designate any associated account (maintainer accounts, company representatives, whatever) as affiliated with the community, if they're not already listed as maintainers of the community. We don't want there to be any ambiguity in this regard; if an account is associated with the community, it will clearly say so. If it doesn't say so, then it's a regular LiveJournal user.
I think that covers some of the biggest concerns people had. If you have questions, feel free to comment here, and we'll try to address them as best as we can. Please don't comment if you just want to say "u sux lol sellouts". (Disagree all you want! Just explain why.) We're very interested in making sure you understand how we're handling this -- whether or not you like the idea, we want to be clear about how we're implementing it.
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →
October 3 2006, 23:22:18 UTC 5 years ago
October 5 2006, 11:04:35 UTC 5 years ago
That said, I'd like to applaud the LiveJournal staff for actually reading all our comments, attempting to answer them, and being responsive and thinking about it. Guys, this alone proves that we are NOT MySpace, and not in danger of becoming it.
October 3 2006, 23:27:10 UTC 5 years ago
I don't think anyone can doubt the sincerity or motivation of the folks behind the scenes at LJ. Sure, mistakes are made but the overwhelming response from the business side of things is great.
October 4 2006, 00:02:41 UTC 5 years ago
That said, someone should save this page somewhere else ;) *hint hint*
October 3 2006, 23:34:23 UTC 5 years ago
October 3 2006, 23:35:49 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 3 2006, 23:34:55 UTC 5 years ago
October 3 2006, 23:35:36 UTC 5 years ago
October 3 2006, 23:35:36 UTC 5 years ago
I'll have to disagree with this statement. As long as LiveJournal exists as a separate entity away from the copyright holders, they have no reason to come looking here unless someone goes out of their way to point us out.
However, once a copyright holder has a presence here, it's much more likely (I'd say 100% more likely) they're going to run across some "misuse" of their copyrighted material on their own. At that point, they must take action if they feel it violates their copyright or risk losing the right to do so for any copyright violation.
October 3 2006, 23:36:15 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 3 2006, 23:36:20 UTC 5 years ago
I don't usually post in topics like these. However, I feel compelled to speak up and say that I think you're doing a great job in handling this. I am disgusted and appalled at the behavior of people who continue to flame, whine, and stir up drama at the merest hint of change. As someone who is in charge of another online community, I know very well that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, and I applaud you for showing the patience and restraint that you have.
October 4 2006, 00:09:10 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 3 2006, 23:36:43 UTC 5 years ago
October 3 2006, 23:38:21 UTC 5 years ago
I especially appreciate the proposed ban on sock puppet accounts, but I'm skeptical of the practicality of enforcement. Of all the possible abuses by sponsed account holders, this seems like the most likely to occur, and in fact almost certainly is occurring in
Basically, this seems like an area where corporate sponsors could make themselves into a big nuisance without consequences.
October 3 2006, 23:40:46 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 3 2006, 23:40:04 UTC 5 years ago
I just want to know more about these tracking cookies we are getting please?
October 4 2006, 02:16:25 UTC 5 years ago
October 3 2006, 23:42:12 UTC 5 years ago
However, I'm still a bit concered about fandom issues. Most userpics, many layouts, and other related things all generally feature some sort of copyrighted material. I'm worried that the companies will actively search us out for those things. Sorry if I'm being paranoid, but it's just a bad prior experience for me.
But thank you agan for all the effort you're putting into straightening everything out.
October 3 2006, 23:58:10 UTC 5 years ago
Possibly, if LJ would want to consider it, is if a company doesn't like the idea of icons/fanfic/layouts/whatever featuring their material, that they explain to the company the various benefits of such things - essentially, icons/fanfic/layouts/etc. are free advertising for them!
I know there are quite a few fandoms that I've become involved in - including purchasing things such as DVDS from the producing company, thereby giving them revenue - because of noticing it first of all in an icon, or through some random fanfic, or whatnot.
5 years ago
October 3 2006, 23:42:59 UTC 5 years ago
October 4 2006, 03:52:58 UTC 5 years ago
October 3 2006, 23:45:28 UTC 5 years ago
October 3 2006, 23:46:14 UTC 5 years ago
October 3 2006, 23:49:51 UTC 5 years ago
October 3 2006, 23:51:36 UTC 5 years ago
I won't be renewing with LJ again. Not because I think that y'all are "corporate sellouts" but just because I don't find the direction you're going to be one I want to support. I understand the business dynamic, and as a consumer, am choosing not to remain an actual customer.
October 4 2006, 01:37:48 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 3 2006, 23:54:00 UTC 5 years ago
That said, I've read through all three posts you've just made, and here's my 2 cents:
I am not 100% satisfied, though I did not expect to be. I expected to be completely repulsed by the idea and ultimately have to suffer through moving my journal(s) offsite to another, let's face it, inferior hosting site. However, having read what you propose, I think it has the possibility of working out satsifactorily for a majority of those involved (at least those who will give it a chance): you in charge, we the users, and the paid sponsors. That is, if you (the collective group in charge of LiveJournal) actually stick with what you have proposed here. Let's be honest: a lot of users don't trust you people anymore. Policies have been changed in sneaky manners, upsetting decisions have been made... it's going to be a nagging thought in the back of our minds that, okay, this isn't too bad, but what happens when....
I'm fairly satisfied with the policies you propose for the Sponsors. Pretty much all the concerns that I had about their rights vs our rights have been addressed. I think that the restrictions you plan to have for the sponsored accounts should ease some of the tension and worries that we've had. The same goes for the fandom, username, and privacy issues.
I think this could work out. Many people are still not going to be satisfied until all advertising is removed from LiveJournal, but that is obviously not going to happen, so I thank you for actually listening to us and trying to respond in the best way that you can.
October 4 2006, 05:46:42 UTC 5 years ago
Thank you for the rest of your comment -- I know we can't make everyone happy, but I hope we've made everyone mostly happy. ;)
October 3 2006, 23:54:35 UTC 5 years ago
Intense and paranoid mass hysteria often doesn't lead to people making the most logical assumptions. ;)
October 4 2006, 00:04:37 UTC 5 years ago
Seriously, though, the tone of the original announcement raised all sorts of red flags for me. Big corporations want to "talk with" me? They want to give me shiny free stuff? Huh? I know that what big corporations really want to do is to make money -- if LJ is saying something else, then either the people at LJ are naive and are being conned, or they think I and naive and someone is trying to con me.
I am relieved to read this post, written in straight-forward, no-bullshit style. (OK, I'm also worried about what will happen to LJ when
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 3 2006, 23:58:40 UTC 5 years ago
October 4 2006, 00:00:40 UTC 5 years ago
weyou all better stop using fandom-related icons, too. ;)October 4 2006, 00:00:29 UTC 5 years ago
LJ's put itself in the position of not-intentionally making it easier for this to happen. It's upped the level of exposure in what was previously a pretty hidden corner of the internet.
October 4 2006, 03:52:00 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 4 2006, 00:02:26 UTC 5 years ago
October 4 2006, 00:08:36 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 4 2006, 00:04:45 UTC 5 years ago
What are the boundaries on who can have a sponsored community?
Things I'm thinking of are things like age restricted movies, where's the cut off point. What if playboy /other pornography merchant approched you for a sponsored community?
Political parties? The NRA? What about extremes like the BNP (British National Party, extremely racist/homophobic borderline neo-nazi, but legal party with elected representitaves in the UK) or the KKK? Exreme pro-life groups, PETA? Corporate entities like the RIAA/MPAA?
Basically are you going to take anyone's money, or will you exercise discretion about who you allow to use the site in this way? What will you use as the cut off points in this? How will you make the decision? Will them offering more money sway you or is there a fixed price for a sponsorted community (out of interest how much is that, presuming it is fixed price of course?)
October 4 2006, 00:09:14 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
October 4 2006, 00:07:30 UTC 5 years ago
Paid user opt in?
At some point, you guys are going to have a sponsored Comm that I like the look of. Some film buy some director I hadn't heard of? Meh. But there'll be something coll I'm interested in.As a paid user, can I opt into a "new sponsored comms" announcement scheme?
(and, for the record, if you'd gone this way instead of stupid ad boxes everywhere, I recon the fuss about selling out wouldn't exist)
Also? You guys really need a better PR team. Really. Two great new product ideas, but completely trashed by really poor announcing. Although why the fuss about sponsored comms now when they started a month ago is beyond me.
October 4 2006, 01:16:09 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Paid user opt in?
"Although why the fuss about sponsored comms now when they started a month ago is beyond me."[EYEROLL] Because (almost) nobody *knew* they'd started a month ago, silly!
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 4 2006, 00:08:18 UTC 5 years ago
Thanks for taking the time to address our concerns!
October 4 2006, 00:11:17 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 4 2006, 00:08:55 UTC 5 years ago
As I commented before, I really couldn't see what the big hubbub was about, and it's good to see that some of the "legitimate concerns" were just paranoid rumourmongering.
If people don't like sponsored comms, fine. Don't join 'em. :D
Yes, there's the possibility of companies complaining regarding copyright infringement, but that's likely to be few and far between.
Andrew Lloyd Webber's Really Useful Company could yell at me for my icon, fr'ex, but I believe it falls under the parody clause of Fair Use. Most icons would be cause for Fair Use, probably, unless you were actively making money off it, or you had that animated icon of Kermit boinking and spanking some stuffed animal. I can certainly understand Henson & Co having a problem there.
So by and large, I'm not worried. I have faith in you guys.
October 4 2006, 01:49:30 UTC 5 years ago
Umm... I think you meant to say "some of the legimiate concerns ended up not being a problem"? Because it's not exactly paranoid to wonder if in this situation lj might sell our e-mails. Lj has them. A LARGE number of companies have done this. It's by no means out of the question that lj could have done thing (though they don't suck, so it turns out that they're not). Same with the rest of the questions that people had about the new system. That's what happens when you announce sweeping major changes without specific infomation: people have to wonder why you would not tell them things.
On the other hand, I'm glad most of these things ended up not being issues too. :D
October 4 2006, 00:09:29 UTC 5 years ago
fandom is the only reason i am on lj and i'd hate to lose that.
October 4 2006, 02:02:49 UTC 5 years ago
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →