geekette8

I'm a bit confused by all this, really. Can the LJ admins not produce a statement, or something, so we know what's going on?

...and furthermore, has anyone e.g. opened an LJ suggestion to request that FAQ 111 be reverted?

I did, just now. We'll see if it makes it onto the community.

Even The Register picked it up :-)

Not necessarily the slant the BF group might want, though.

D

. . . and I'm probably going to be controversial here. I'm totally for breastfeeding, I breast fed my own two for 6 and 8 months, and in public when the need arose. However, I was discreet, always aware that it makes some people uncomfortable, even if they aren't sure why. I personally think there's been an over reaction to all this. I do think LJ are right to ask users not to have breast feeding as default icons. As far as I'm aware they aren't asking people to not use them at all. I'll stand corrected if that isn't the case. I know breastfeeding is beautiful etc, but there are users who would prefer not to see breast feeding icons for a number of reasons, and there are employers who might be curious as to what John or Jane Doe are doing when they glimpse a naked breast [with or without a baby attached]. Everyone has rights and preferences, the trick is to find the balance. The rules are there for a reason and, although not everyone will agree with them, LJ have the right to set those rules or change them if they so wish. They have stated that they support breast feeding, they just don't support breastfeeding icons as a default. Really, there's more serious issues to get involved with other than Mum being annoyed because she can't display little Jimmy feeding at her breast to everyone on her friend's list or to the public arena. With tsunamis and earthquake deaths, starving millions, war torn Iraq, knife culture and paedophiles, I really can't get worked up about an icon issue. For Live Journals part, if they want to keep default icons suitable for public viewing they should crack down on the many tasteless icons that frequent the place.

What's getting under my skin is the inconsistency. The Abuse team will say that one icon is okay, but another showing far less breast/areola will be banned. They say they are following FCC standards, which they are not (FCC apparently has a breastfeeding exemption to their own indecency rules). In other words, it's less about the content of the pictures than the fact that the rules are being applied arbitrarily and inconsistently. Not to mention that said rules were quietly changed after all this started and the Abuse team has tried to make it sound like those were always the rules.

I agree. Inconsistency is annoying, whether it's changing rules back and forth or in what constitutes 'inappropriate'. Maybe this whole thing will encourage LiveJournal to look at the whole issue of icons and get together more agreeable and consistent guidelines. They need balance but how they do that I'm not quite sure. What offends one person, amuses another. I suppose the basic rule of thumb re: default icons should be - if you think some people might be offended or an employer might take exception, don't use it as a default icon. There's plenty of opportunity for posting possible contentious icons in the comments. It's all about respecting each other.

*coff*
If an employer might be offended, there's a fair chance the reader shouldn't be LJing at work. Regardless of the icon.

Without a doubt. But we wouldn't want to deprive fellow LJers of their guilty pleasure ;-)

Hi,

I've emailed you regarding the ladies loos book - could you let me know if the email doesn't come through?

thanks,
Natasha