![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I still like lists
Feb. 19th, 2010 10:49 am1. I just figured out how to use css to make links in a dreamwidth journal show an external-link icon if they leave the journal/community. \o/ So, I mean, there are maybe all of two places where that is useful, but since one of them is something I'm working on right now, it seems pretty awesome.
2. I am cranky about the way news organizations spoil sports results in headlines. Stop it, guys! The online headline should be "men's figure skating results (spoilers)." Like, they've got a built in cut tag already, and they can't stop for one second?
Which is to say, I have not yet seen the men's long programs, but I already know who won the gold, because it was one of the three top headlines on the SF Chronicle's webpage. And I don't want to know! I don't want to know who won any medals or who fell down or who cried or anything. *cranky face*
3. Um, what? No, let me say that again with more emphasis: WHAT?
Summary: NY's attorney general sent lj a list of emails belonging to people on the sexual offenders registry. LJ then deleted those folks' accounts, because although they have been released from prison they might someday in the future do bad things. Note: there are in fact people who are required to not have any social networking profiles as conditions of their parole, but it's not clear from the text of the entry that the people on the list had that parole requirement. And the e-stop bill includes, iirc, everyone on the sex offender registry and all kinds of crimes.
I can see why lj made the decision they did even though they were not legally required to delete those profiles -- it is almost always good business practice to cry "we think of the CHILDREN!" -- but man, does it make me sad. The comments on the![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
lj_policy post feature a LOT of "think of the children!" and "but sex offenders have higher rates of recidivism than other criminals! so we should obviously take social networks away from all sex offenders even after they have paid their debt to society!" And a complete lack of belief in rehabilitation, or in sexual crimes as acts and not identities, or in the fuzziness of "sexual offender" as a category. (Also, let me just say: this is posted to lj_policy, which had not previously been updated since 2008. I didn't even remember that I was still subscribed to lj_policy.)
2. I am cranky about the way news organizations spoil sports results in headlines. Stop it, guys! The online headline should be "men's figure skating results (spoilers)." Like, they've got a built in cut tag already, and they can't stop for one second?
Which is to say, I have not yet seen the men's long programs, but I already know who won the gold, because it was one of the three top headlines on the SF Chronicle's webpage. And I don't want to know! I don't want to know who won any medals or who fell down or who cried or anything. *cranky face*
3. Um, what? No, let me say that again with more emphasis: WHAT?
Summary: NY's attorney general sent lj a list of emails belonging to people on the sexual offenders registry. LJ then deleted those folks' accounts, because although they have been released from prison they might someday in the future do bad things. Note: there are in fact people who are required to not have any social networking profiles as conditions of their parole, but it's not clear from the text of the entry that the people on the list had that parole requirement. And the e-stop bill includes, iirc, everyone on the sex offender registry and all kinds of crimes.
I can see why lj made the decision they did even though they were not legally required to delete those profiles -- it is almost always good business practice to cry "we think of the CHILDREN!" -- but man, does it make me sad. The comments on the
lj_policy post feature a LOT of "think of the children!" and "but sex offenders have higher rates of recidivism than other criminals! so we should obviously take social networks away from all sex offenders even after they have paid their debt to society!" And a complete lack of belief in rehabilitation, or in sexual crimes as acts and not identities, or in the fuzziness of "sexual offender" as a category. (Also, let me just say: this is posted to lj_policy, which had not previously been updated since 2008. I didn't even remember that I was still subscribed to lj_policy.)
