(no subject)

Date: Apr. 13th, 2017 06:58 am (UTC)
marahmarie: my initials (MM) (0)
From: [personal profile] marahmarie
So if they can write ToS that make it seem that DW is a this rogue party that is an illegitimate site, then they would seem to be the better company despite the OH SO MANY woes

Lotsa euphemisms for "not anti-LGBTQIA" - gotcha.

(Also - I was trying not say this, but I'm editing to say this because it's got to be said - I haven't seen or heard where LJ's added anything to their ToS to make DW sound like a "rogue site" or "illegitimate party". DW isn't mentioned in LJ's ToS afaik, and nothing in LJ's ToS - again afaik - seems to point to DW by mere inference (nothing that couldn't point to many other websites, as well - Russia is unusually keen on taking an anti-LGBTQIA stance by all but the most fundie/right-wing standards, and don't ask me what I think of that, because I will curse) so I'm not entirely sure where you were going with that?)

I imagine the dw staff is quickly trying to figure out a position to deal with LJ's response. It must be a nightmare for a bunch of part-timers.

If they *are* in the act of trying to figure out if or how to update DW's ToS, it's not just the part-timers gnashing teeth, wringing hands and rending garments. DW's owners *will* need to consult with attorneys (I would imagine, I can't see how not!).

(It's not for me to speculate, based on a single, user-reported "spike in activity" what - if anything - is going on, so it's completely unfair and even unwise for me to comment beyond that.)
Anonymous (will be screened)
OpenID (will be screened)
Identity URL: 
User (will be screened)
Account name:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.


Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.