?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Unacceptable clause - Journal of Omnifarious

Apr. 20th, 2006

05:26 am - Unacceptable clause

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Clause 17 in section XVI of the LJ terms of service now reads as follows:

  1. Employ tactics and/or technologies to prevent the full and complete delivery or display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
    1. Making journal style changes, customizations, or overrides that effectively block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on a Sponsored+ account's Content or other pages within the Service.
    2. Employing and/or providing software programs, browser scripts, or other technologies that serve to block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages.

This is not acceptable. I'm going to start seriously looking into ways of moving my journal off of LiveJournal and onto my own server. Nobody gets to tell me what my browser can and can't do. It's my computer and my software. I'm the only person who should have any say in what I'm running.

Anyway, the community no_lj_ads has some useful information on this.

Update 2005-04-20 22:59 UTC (15:59 PDT): Thanks to ubiquity for pointing out that apparently this was a mistake, and they're updating the policy to remove the offending terms.

Comments:

From:incused
Date:April 20th, 2006 12:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:omnifarious
Date:April 20th, 2006 12:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)

Using OpenID should allow friends to still work.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:morinon
Date:April 20th, 2006 03:39 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The proper thing to do?

Run Firefox with adblocker anyways, and if they send you off, happily give them the finger.

How well do you think they will police this?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:omnifarious
Date:April 20th, 2006 04:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)

I don't care how well they police this. If they selectively enforce, that's even worse. It's the principle of the thing.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ethernight
Date:April 20th, 2006 09:13 pm (UTC)
(Link)
"How well do you think they will police this?"

I do not think it is possible to enforce this.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:who_is_she
Date:April 20th, 2006 03:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm not too techie, but if I understand what I'm reading correctly, then LJ's term of service is saying it's not ok for me to have my machine set up in a way that protects me from having to read all the ads, without clicking on them to see them if I choose?

I think my computer might be set up this way now, and since I'm not the techie expert at this house, I dont know how it happened. Software, settings, or my lovely spouse putting some nifty code in there to eliminate the nasty flashing distracting ads, which really offend my eyes.
:)

So, LJ is now saying that having something like that on my comptuer is against their policy? or is it just if I am not paying the full rate that it's against their policy?
(either way, seems like you're right, they're telling me what I can have on my machine, which is pretty invasive)

thanks for sharing this.....
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:omnifarious
Date:April 20th, 2006 04:55 pm (UTC)
(Link)

It isn't all that clear as to whether or not it's against the policy if you're a paid user. Since if you're a paid user you don't see any ads anyway.

But yes, you have the basic gist of it. Running software that restricts the display of advertisements in any significant way is now against their terms of service.

As I said, it's my computer and my software. Nobody besides me gets to have any say in what software I'm running. That's one of the biggest reasons I only use Open Source software. I'm not at all happy doing business with some company that tries to use their terms of service to violate this principle.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:hattifattener
Date:April 20th, 2006 07:12 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Grrr. I agree. XVI.17.a is acceptable to me. XVI.17.b definitely isnt.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:omnifarious
Date:April 20th, 2006 07:47 pm (UTC)
(Link)

Yep, that's how I feel about it too. a is acceptable, b isn't.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ubiquity
Date:April 20th, 2006 09:46 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Looks like it was an accident and has been retracted.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:omnifarious
Date:April 20th, 2006 11:06 pm (UTC)

Thanks

(Link)

Thanks for pointing that out.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)