True, I've heard complaints about the LJ abuse team. But then the objection is not that this is an ineffectual or inappropriate mechanism for classifying content, but that the particular people who are tasked with handling abuse are not doing so effectively. I think it's a separate problem and, frankly, potentially a more serious one.
If you came upon a web page and the only thing it showed you was a list of links with absolutely no information about what was behind them - would you bother clicking around? And even if you did, the next thing you would find would be an "I certify I'm over 18" button.
Believe me, there is no better way to get me to click through into a web site than by putting it behind a link that says "This may contain explicit material" and a button that says "I swear I'm really over 18".
I also don't expect this to become subject to widespread and blatant abuse for the reasons cited above. If I don't want someone's writings read, I can try to flag them, but I expect that even the LJ abuse team would recognize a baldly fraudulent attempt to get someone's political writings flagged as "offensive content."
no subject
If you came upon a web page and the only thing it showed you was a list of links with absolutely no information about what was behind them - would you bother clicking around? And even if you did, the next thing you would find would be an "I certify I'm over 18" button.
Believe me, there is no better way to get me to click through into a web site than by putting it behind a link that says "This may contain explicit material" and a button that says "I swear I'm really over 18".
I also don't expect this to become subject to widespread and blatant abuse for the reasons cited above. If I don't want someone's writings read, I can try to flag them, but I expect that even the LJ abuse team would recognize a baldly fraudulent attempt to get someone's political writings flagged as "offensive content."