Talk:Strikethrough and Boldthrough
Why is there a question on top the entry? Wouldn't a "see also: Boldthrough" work better to link to the later continuation? Maybe in one of these boxes? I'm afraid I haven't fully grokked which template to use when.--RatCreature 12:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I added the boldthrough bit down in related links, if that's okay. I think we could make a pretty good case for adding Boldthrough as a part of the Strikethrough article, since they're really closely related. What do you think? --Seperis 14:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have no particular opion whether Boldthrough ought to have an extra entry, but do we really need to reproduce the whole Anildash quote here? Wouldn't be a summary and a link better for an overview article? Or maybe an exceprt. It is very long for a quote.--RatCreature 14:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, but I wasn't sure what to feature, since the quote covers several things that were question marks to ljers, including the actual number of accounts removed and the WFI connection. If anyone wants to cut it down and format it for several partial quotes, I'm all for it. --Seperis 15:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- How about just a summary? My summaries aren't the greatest, so I didn't edit the article right away, but I think a paragraph like this (only maybe phrased better) would give the key points and then a link to the full text would be sufficient: Anildash describes the event as a screw-up that was made worse by miscommunication and led to the suspension of the LJs of "innocent bystanders" like legitimate communities for abuse survivors, but also stressed that only a small number of accounts, 500 out of 13 million were affected by LJ's actions. She puts the ultimate blame for LJs overzealous suspensions on pressure from groups like WFI and the media that depict the internet as a place full of sexual predators. She stresses that LJ was an ethical company fighting for net neutrality and supporting the EFF financially, and that the suspensions were made with positive intentions to act against pedophiles and that fandom as a community was not an intentional target. --RatCreature 19:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's workable. There's only a few lines in there I want to direct quote, so let me figure out how to do that and then add the rest as narrative. --Seperis 20:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would only note that Anil Dash is male.--Ari 20:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say how much I'm still angry at all of this. I want to go scream at Anil that people weren't upset (much) that the policy changed without warning--they were upset that a new policy had been implemented and hadn't been posted, before or after. I still want an answer to "so, Barak, this zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia: where is/was it posted?" And I still hate LJ for destroying what fandom had built there over the last several years. I'm trying to figure out how to add details/refs that capture that feeling. --Elfwreck 21:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Needs More Fannish Comment
This page needs more fannish comment in the body of the page: different views, whys, effect on fandom... It also could use a much more robust section of links to fannish comment posts in the "Further Reading" section. It's a good start, but right now, IMO, it reads very dry and doesn't come close to capturing and explaining why this was so upsetting, and its impact on fandom. --MPH (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Send them to me, or post them here, and I'll try to incorporate them. Also, I wasn't in LJ fandom at this time, so any other perspectives and assistance would be greatly appreciated. --MPH (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know if these will be in any way helpful but maybe they will add something
-  - links to some posts on Dreamwidth timeline
- After the events of 2007, fandom began to realize that movement away from LJ was inevitable. The outrage over Strikethrough directly contributed to the creation of the fan-run journal platform Dreamwidth and the fan-run fanfiction archive ArchiveOfOurOwn.org. LiveJournal user cellia recalls, “Strikethrough confirmed in my mind that I'll never give LJ any money, that I should back everything up regularly, and that one day I would get a Dreamwidth account.” “We are sitting quietly by the fireside, creating piles and piles of content around us, and other people... are going to end up creating the front doors that new fanfic writers walk through, unless we stand up and build our OWN front door,” popular LiveJournaler astolat insisted just two weeks before Strikethrough happened. (from Daily Dot LJ decline timeline)
- One result of Strikethrough was that many communities and individual fans locked their blogs so the content could be viewed only community members, or those on their friends lists. Other fans opened accounts at blogging platforms like JournalFen, The Greatest Journal, or Insane Journal. There was definitely an atmosphere of mistrust and paranoia that hadn’t previously existed, and part of the problem was that Livejournal had not come through with promised clarification about what sort of content violated the ToS. ()
- This LJ community was created as a result of Strikethrough and has several useful posts
-  links to several posts with additional perspectives that aren't linked from here
- I was on LJ when all this happened and while I can't link you to specific posts on my flist I remember the general feeling of panic and outrage (sometimes at the same time) where people felt like they were being treated like criminals and that the complete lack of understanding from LJ staff made some feel unwelcome (hence moves to other platforms). I remember some people stipulating that LJ/6A didn't think fandom had big enough presence on LJ to treat us seriously (which is how fandom counts started). It was basically the beginning of the end, because once we stopped feeling safe in our spaces, we looked for other places. Once Dreamwidth entered beta, the feature enabling crossposting to LJ was their biggest selling point that made many people move to DW. --Alex (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hoist the Colors?
Was the official Strikethrough 2007 song was "Hoist the Colors" from the Pirates of the Caribbean soundtrack? I find only two mentions of this: one at Encyclopedia Dramatica (warning: clicking on any of the interior links there takes me to dodgy sites and freezes things up on my computer, YMMV), and one at the Supernatural Wiki. If I can't find other evidence of the song used by fans for Strikethrough, I'm going to remove the mention. --MPH (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Icons? Other Fanworks?
Any Other Suggestions for This Page?
- topics not covered?
- organization suggestions?
- anyone up for adding/doing any other editing? --MPH (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a heads-up--there's a bunch of people on Tumblr trying to revive this issue and claiming that people who draw/write underage characters in NSFW situations are paedophiles (even if aged up) and I've been referring to Strikethrough a lot in conversations about this, so I came to look at the page. I noticed that you had broken links to my journal because I changed the name as I was tired of being trolled, but it's been a long enough time that I don't much care if people know I'm the former ataniell93, so I fixed the links. Tiferet (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you! Both for checking the page, and for amending the links, Tiferet. I did a lot of revision on this page about nine months ago, and am grateful for any updates and extra sets of eyes. --MPH (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Is this in reference to the Sherlock fandom situation or is it a panfandom tumblr thing?--aethel (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This page linked in the article states "DEBUNKED: the claim that multiple survivor communities were suspended. People, this isn't true. Yes, individual survivor journals were deleted (two have been noted in comments here, one by its owner and the other by people who knew the owner, although she has not posted here). I have not seen a suspended comm named here that was explicitly a survivor comm; one anon commenter did say that her comm, intended for teens to ask question about sex, was deleted, but she did not name the comm. Please stop repeating this."
Yet the article says "Among the deleted ljs were RPG journals, book discussion groups , rape survivor groups..." Is there a solid source on this? --Assassin J (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)