You're quite right. the pro-anorexia/bulemia communities are not illegal in the same way that child pornography is illegal. However, that's only one part of that clause of the TOS; surely these communities "promote physical harm or injury against any [...] individual", namely the self? Should their attitude be different towards communities which encouraged other forms of self-harm (cutting, for example), and suggested strategies for concealing the evidence? What about the LJ equivalent of alt.suicide.holiday?
The BBC article makes the point that "if properly regulated, they can be used for positive means" (emphasis mine). Is there any evidence that there is any regulation of the LJ communities beyond the purely reactive attitude of LJ/6A's review process? ("II. We do not review content until it is reported to us. We will accept all reports of material that is reported to us, regardless of the source, but we will only take action when that material violates our policies.") Sure, they're relying on the DMCA's safe harbor provision to protect themselves against copyright infringement lawsuits, but I'm not convinced that that allows them to abrogate their responsibilities in other areas.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zvi and
no subject
Date: 2007-08-09 11:47 am (UTC)The BBC article makes the point that "if properly regulated, they can be used for positive means" (emphasis mine). Is there any evidence that there is any regulation of the LJ communities beyond the purely reactive attitude of LJ/6A's review process? ("II. We do not review content until it is reported to us. We will accept all reports of material that is reported to us, regardless of the source, but we will only take action when that material violates our policies.") Sure, they're relying on the DMCA's safe harbor provision to protect themselves against copyright infringement lawsuits, but I'm not convinced that that allows them to abrogate their responsibilities in other areas.