?

Log in

I am really unenthusiastic about the new LJ user agreement. - Ignore them: they're just flesh wounds [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
sprockets, sockets, grommets & gaskets

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Apr. 3rd, 2017|07:33 pm]
sprockets, sockets, grommets & gaskets
I am really unenthusiastic about the new LJ user agreement.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: rhiannonstone
2017-04-04 03:20 am (UTC)
I begrudgingly clicked through after a Russian-speaking friend confirmed that the legally-binding Russian version wasn't materially different from the non-legally-binding English translation--and then started the import to Dreamwidth.

If you're there I can't find you with the same username.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomdreams
2017-04-04 04:07 am (UTC)
I'm there under smellsofbikes, which is the name I use most places but here.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tylik
2017-04-05 08:16 pm (UTC)
Ah, there we are.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: topum
2017-04-04 11:28 pm (UTC)
It is not different at all. This translation disclaimer is standard say in legal reports or audit reports in Asia for example. The English translation is an accurate and complete translation but if one goes to court everything will have to be based on the original version in local language not the English translation. And local courts would normally work with the local language version obviously. Russia is no different. Neither is US, whenever contracts are translated into some other language to foreign customers but are subject to US law it is disclaimed that the legally binding version is the English language one, the rest are just translations.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: eub
2017-04-05 08:40 am (UTC)
Examples do exist where a company is willing to put forth terms in the user's language, unless I'm missing something in the back-translation of the Russian there. But certainly they'd prefer not to.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: topum
2017-04-05 09:33 am (UTC)
Everyone would prefer not to (some do), it just makes legal part so much more expensive to get through and maintain. The users of this site are now mainly Russian so a Russian company bought it and it is now a Russian company, based in Russia and therefore subject to Russian law with majority of users also Russians based in Russia so the TOS are in Russian and just translated into English for a tiny minority of international users. This is nothing unusual. They will not spend on us, it just does not make any business sense, we are a complete afterthought here. One can like it or not but this is not some draconian thing they did just because they decided to be awful and trick everyone into something and one can trust the English translation in this case (not that one has to like the substance of TOS). I guess we, non-native speakers of English are way more accustomed to have to tick all those boxes in English and be bound by something in the language other than our native language (which not all of us may even understand).

I think all of this stuff is aimed at Russian bloggers with their still big audiences here on LJ, nobody is going to enforce this on us with our 17 readers. But I will test it next week when the dust settles. I will have to open a new unpaid account (paid accounts are carved out for now I think) and will post provocative posts that break the TOS and see what happens. My guess is they won't not notice or care but it will be interesting.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: eub
2017-04-06 07:31 am (UTC)
Yep, English users and U.S. users are a total afterthought, and I doubt SUP cares one way or another if we stay or go, maybe with mild preference for shutting down English-language operations.

I think it's totally fair to say that US-English users are getting a taste of the marginality that billions of people feel every day. Russian speakers are routinely supposed to agree to English ToS on tons of websites (I cherrypicked an exception). Global users face the U.S. government demanding compliance with their local laws, and even claiming extraterritorial application of law. I don't think I'm special to deserve better, I think everybody deserves it, really. Like them I'd suck it up if I had to. But I don't.

I'm interested in your testing, though I will comment that they don't have to whack something consistently to create a deterrent effect, if that is the idea. Is it accurate that discussion of homosexuality can be considered "adult content" under Russian standards? That would be interesting to post non-adult-tagged, and have someone else report it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: topum
2017-04-07 11:46 pm (UTC)
I will give it a couple of weeks for dust to settle and then design the test and post it, ask people to help promote it and then perhaps report it, etc to see what happens.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: eub
2017-04-06 07:39 am (UTC)
I do believe it's unusual to claim I'm liable for somebody's comments on my journal.
User who posted comments in Blog and User keeping such a Blog shall be jointly and severally liable in respect of such comments

I must admit I don't know if it's new in this version versus previous versions. But I don't see anything at all similar in Facebook's ToS, or Google+'s, or Dreamwidth's.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: topum
2017-04-07 11:44 pm (UTC)
My main point was not about the content but about the English version being just a translation and not binding, etc. Because I am not a native speaker of English I saw a lot of this and wanted to share that it is not unusual and is not (as some here worried) some ploy involving inaccurate translation to trick us into signing something we wouldn't (ie present in the binding Russian version but not accurately reflected in the English translation), etc. I wouldn't worry about that. And I think it is safe to assume that if one went to court (if Russia had real courts of course) the result would be the same if it used either Russian or English version.

What to make of the content of these new TOS is a more complex and subjective matter. I concluded for myself that there will be minimal risk of censorship here for me (certainly lower than on FB for example), minimal legal risk, minimal risk of loss of my posts and that by leaving I also would not achieve anything that I saw people trying to achieve (from solidarity with our LGBT friends to taking a stand against Putin, I think none of that has any meaning in this context). Having said that, I still think that backing things up on DW is not a bad idea. I did it a while ago but never used DW since then because I thought it sucked big time (especially for posting photos which I do a lot) and I still do.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)