Oh, niiiice

[sigma7]

I assume it applies only to free/sponsored+ users, but still. Via /.: "The community/blogging site LiveJournal recently introduced ads on some pages for free users. More interestingly, they also added a new restriction to their TOS (XVI 17 b.) banning users from using or providing ad-blocking software. The new TOS also permits them to immediately terminate the account of anyone they catch doing this."

Comments

[robing.livejournal.com]

Saw that option and thought "Do I really want to alienate the four people who read my journal *that* badly?"

[sigma7.livejournal.com]

Just saw your icon. Oh, that's cute.

[robing.livejournal.com]

hee. Thanks. Feel free to use it if you like.

[rainfletcher.livejournal.com]

Let me see if I've got this straight. You've got ad-blocking software on your PC, you're cruising, say, metaquotes, you follow a link to check context, the person's account has ads, LJ detects you blocking the ads and bans you?

Wow, I hope that's not what they meant.

[sigma7.livejournal.com]

It certainly does seem to imply such. Maybe there's unwritten policies -- you know, if you only do this as a matter of habit or to deliberately undermine the advertising portion of the Sponsored+ membership level will they take action -- but the letter of the TOS is pretty harsh.

Of course, one of the Slashdot comments had a good point that EULAs and TOSs can be edited arbitrarily by one party, without negotiation, and as such, that hardly constitutes a valid contract. And while I can see LJ/SA's rationale for this rule, instituting it in this manner (very very quietly with no clarification) is hardly in good faith.