Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Choosing a new default icon
passion
bohemiancoast
OK, I'd like your help. I've nicked the idea from Good/Bad Delphic polling. You might find that FAQ 111 helps, or the additional explanation from my email that "In particular, images of the female breast that depict the nipple or areola regions are inappropriate for use as a default userpic." I'm very grateful for that clear delineation; it's so helpful to have an absolute hard and fast rule.

With that in mind, which of the following would be an acceptable LiveJournal default icon?

Poll #745962 Choosing a New Default Icon

An abstract picture of circles?

Acceptable!
26(72.2%)
Unacceptable!
10(27.8%)

An ascii art representation of naked breasts?

Acceptable!
35(94.6%)
Unacceptable!
2(5.4%)

A man breastfeeding?

Acceptable!
35(94.6%)
Unacceptable!
2(5.4%)

A slightly risqué bit of artwork?

Acceptable!
9(25.0%)
Unacceptable!
27(75.0%)

A protester wearing body paint?

Acceptable!
18(50.0%)
Unacceptable!
18(50.0%)

A recoloured version of that abstract collection of ellipses?

Acceptable!
30(85.7%)
Unacceptable!
5(14.3%)

A cute furry skunk by Taral Wayne

Acceptable!
13(36.1%)
Unacceptable!
23(63.9%)

A picture of a jug?

Acceptable!
34(91.9%)
Unacceptable!
3(8.1%)

A keyboard nipple?

Acceptable!
36(97.3%)
Unacceptable!
1(2.7%)

A doodle of a stylised breast?

Acceptable!
10(28.6%)
Unacceptable!
25(71.4%)

Breastfeeding baby?

Acceptable!
27(81.8%)
Unacceptable!
6(18.2%)

Xylocampa Areola?

Acceptable!
37(100.0%)
Unacceptable!
0(0.0%)

Man boobs?

Acceptable!
22(61.1%)
Unacceptable!
14(38.9%)

Love is... violating FAQ 111?

Acceptable!
25(67.6%)
Unacceptable!
12(32.4%)

Actual lactation photo?

Acceptable!
34(91.9%)
Unacceptable!
3(8.1%)

  • 1
I absolutely LOVE the ascii one! Please don't use the man boobs - I fel sick :-)

(Deleted comment)
No, no, suspend common standards of decency; we're talking LJ FAQ 111 here. The greatest works of classical art are liable to deprave and corrupt, remember.

Have they complained at you then?

Its also items of currency that are liable to deprave...

My default icon has had a suspension notice -- and I haven't changed to this one (which is channelling Maude Flanders) in case they just suspend me without notice.

Acceptable to me? All of them. ;)

Nope. Acceptable to LiveJournal as default icons is the test. Didn't I make that clear?

I think all of them, then. Other than the moobs which are just icky ;)

I've tried to be strictly guided in my answers by what I think the LJ TOS stipulate. In particular, it's not specified that the mammal be human, and non-photographic depictions seem to be included.

I think banning this Klimt icon



gives a sense of how unrepresentational the picture can be and still fall foul of the rules.

'Ah, but...' it's clearly intended to represent a human female breast. I certainly agree that anything which can be obliquely construed as representing female mammary glands could be ruled unacceptable with the current LJ TOS and attitude.

This was more or less the line that I took. Which is why, for example, I deemed the first abstract as "unacceptable" by any consistent interpretation of the LJ TOS as implied by current LJ representations.

Having said this, I don't think they would reject it. The alleged need for straightforward rules and consistency is grounded in a particular form of trouble avoidance. And the abstract has a very low risk of trouble from e.g. Harry Potter burners. Lower than, for example, the Klimt.

Actually can I nick the ascii breasts?

Only if you're very unluckly with the razor.

Certainly. They are hardly original with me, though of course this icon is. It was lucky chance actually. I had used an italic font for whatever the last thing I did in Photoshop, and I typed the ascii with the intention of changing it, but thought, hey, that looks great just like that.

This is probably Too Much Graphic Font Information, in fact.

(Deleted comment)
Wonderful poll! Love the ASCII one!

The man boobs one is unacceptable for a variety of reasons (shudders!) and while it might be acceptable under current LJ guidelines LJ abuse would probably slap you anyway. After all, it might just be a very muscular woman and you haven't got text saying "Man-tits" written over it after all. i thought long and hard about the green circles one and evben though I voted 'acceptable' i think LJ Abuse could nail you for that one too if they felt like it.

I didn't answer on the one labeled 'breastfeeding baby' because I couldn't get it to resolve to anything I would call an image; I'm guessing it's animated, but I spent too much time staring at screens yesterday and am not turning animation on right now. So that's an "insufficient data" rather than the opinion that it's borderline.

Took me a while too but the splodge you think is a nipple is really the eye of the piglet who is suckling at what I sincerely hope is a sow (bottom right).

You could try this one - no baby, no nipples or aureolae, but...

I didn't fill in the poll as I don't consider rationality necessarily applies. In particular, given what I read about LJ abuse, I think they could well decide to make negative interpretations of icons from people they think are deliberately trying to test the rules. So they may ban the abstract circles coming from you, who is clearly engaged in the debate about this topic, but not ban the same icon from someone who's not involved in it. Sadly, that means they could potentially come after any of the icons you suggest, not because it violates the original rule but because they think you're testing them.

I think the current LJ abuse position is absurd, but I'd note that at the end of the day they're human beings who have got themselves into a corner and are taking criticism from many sides. That's a recipe for a cornered reaction.

And the abuse team don't get paid to take this criticism either. it interests me at a professional level as someone who's recently been investigating ISP abuse teams - a strange and murky area..

I don't get paid for being criticised over my opinions either. The LJ abuse team are volunteers, they chose to be dogmatic rather than conciliatory on this issue.

The problem comes back to Six Apart not providing sufficient training and guidance, and not accepting that although the abuse team are volunteers the management are still responsible for their actions.

It also comes back to 6 Apart not wanting to incur possible legal liability for a service provided free to many people - as a lawyer i have a lot of sympathy with this.

Are 'employers'of volunteers not liable anyway? AIUI 6 Apart have failed to offer guidance to the abuse team. If you accept volunteers without appropriate training does that not leave a company at risk of far more serious liabilities?

It really depends what they're doing, Obviously employers are usually vicariously liable for employers acting in course of busines. so if your truck driver runs over a child while driving normally doing deliveries, yes, you're liable. but in this case 6 Apart, I hate to say, have done nothing wrong for anyone to be vicariously liable for. It's a private co. If a co chooses to sell cotton frocks and not vibrators, well, they're liable for nothing, and neither are their call sales operators who sell the frocks. no one has to push things to the limit, especially for no extra money. 6 Apart is not the state - they do not have a duty to pursue or defend ultimate freedom of expression. your choice as a consumer is to go to another private operator who does or will..

That all makes sense with regard to new icons, but the changing of the ToS to retroactively ban a existing icon is a different matter.

There is also the confused matter of whether the ban on breastfeeding icons is a breach of California law. If it is then 6 Apart have acted wrongly.

It's not a ban on breastfeeding icons. It's a ban on using it as your default icon.

I wonder what they'd think of this as a default.

What you need is a picture of Tubs (from League of Gentlemen) breastfeeding the piglet. That made even me sqirm.

FF

There is picture of Tori Amos doing that on the sleve of Boys For pele (I Think)

See purplecthulu's icon to his comment above. Thanks for telling us where he got it from. I have that CD but never noticed the picture - obviously my subconscious has an established policy on acceptable CD covers that hasn't been made public to the rest of my brain.

I think it may be an internal sleev photo rather than a default.

You are right. I had to go and dig out the CD just to see.

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account