If you read the text of the exchange liz_marcs had with LJ Abuse, you'll see this:
The LiveJournal Abuse Prevention team only investigates material which has been reported to us. Should a link be reported in a case where it is clear from the context that any violation of the Terms of Service is entirely unintentional and caused by a change in the page content after the time the link was made, the action LiveJournal would take would be to ask the user to remove the link; it would not count as a "strike" under the "two strike" rule.
Am I the only one who finds this to be TOTALLY reasonable? The summary, and many of the comments here, seem to be all up in arms about how if a page changes, someone is going to have their LiveJournal deleted... when the words quoted above make it pretty clear that unless a user mentions the illegal content in the context of the link, they're just going to let you know that the content changed, and ask you to remove the link!
Looks like there was plenty of opportunity for him to appeal and compromise:
The Abuse team also state that my account will be reinstated if I agree to delete the comment. I remind them that I have already offered to delete the comment if either (a) the troll's account is suspended... or (b) the TOS is updated...
Compromise means that to get what you want, you don't always get it on all of your own terms. Meta wanted his way, his terms... unfortunately for him, it's not his website!
The whole case was one user posting flamebait and another taking it. Flamebait (as unpleasant as it might be) isn't against the LiveJournal TOS, but posting the offending user's real-world contact info as a response is. If only there was a website where all members of the community could work together to devalue flamebait comments...
Mobile barcoding can be done via EMS, which is still technically an SMS transmission... however, the linked article mentions that "users must have mobile phones supporting packet-based technologies, such as GPRS or 3G," so they might be sending a web-link to the barcode image via SMS and relying on the handset's browser to display it.
Well, technically, it could still be SMS - user gets a link via SMS, and then activates it to launch their handset's web browser, which would load the bar-code as an image. So technically, the ticket arrives over GPRS or other 3G data service, but the link to it arrives via SMS.
Slashdot Mirror
IAWTC.
If you read the text of the exchange liz_marcs had with LJ Abuse, you'll see this:
Am I the only one who finds this to be TOTALLY reasonable? The summary, and many of the comments here, seem to be all up in arms about how if a page changes, someone is going to have their LiveJournal deleted... when the words quoted above make it pretty clear that unless a user mentions the illegal content in the context of the link, they're just going to let you know that the content changed, and ask you to remove the link!
The whole case was one user posting flamebait and another taking it. Flamebait (as unpleasant as it might be) isn't against the LiveJournal TOS, but posting the offending user's real-world contact info as a response is. If only there was a website where all members of the community could work together to devalue flamebait comments...
Mobile barcoding can be done via EMS, which is still technically an SMS transmission... however, the linked article mentions that "users must have mobile phones supporting packet-based technologies, such as GPRS or 3G," so they might be sending a web-link to the barcode image via SMS and relying on the handset's browser to display it.
Well, technically, it could still be SMS - user gets a link via SMS, and then activates it to launch their handset's web browser, which would load the bar-code as an image. So technically, the ticket arrives over GPRS or other 3G data service, but the link to it arrives via SMS.