service terms

anonymous asked:

What happens if you make a comission, but they don't like the finished product? (I had to design something for more people, but kept contact with only one of them - turns out one of the others wasn't really impressed)

They have to pay something for your work either way.

At least thats what i do with my comms.

These are my terms of service and warnings I have public to everyone before they commission me: https://sta.sh/01om0e8rto3y
You should prob clarify your terms before doing commissions.
- They are commissioning you for your style / aesthetics.

- If you’re making up the design and they don’t want it, they don’t have to keep it… but they do have to pay you for the time you put into it still. 

- How much work and time do you think you’ll put into the design? Make a base price that they must agree to pay before or after it’s done (whether they like the design or not),  so you get SOMETHING out of your work if they don’t like it in the end.
- Some people do like XX amount per hour worked on the design.

- Basically you just have to reach an agreement with the other person that XX amount will get payed in the end.

I personally (stated in my link I’ve given), tell the commissioner that what they give me is what they get. No changes unless they want to pay more for edits. (Though I haven’t done custom designs in a very very long time).

I’m sure there’s other artists out there too though that can give better advice than me xD.

Just a heads up, AO3 deleted one of my original works because someone reported it for “not being fanwork” despite original work being a “fandom” with over 35k fics.

“Under Section IV. of the Terms of Service, which you agreed to when opening your account, prompt requests, prompt lists, squee posts, notices about meetups, non-fanwork fiction or nonfiction, fic searches, rec lists, letters to other users, reactions to episodes, blog or Tumblr-appropriate posts, and other ephemeral content (i.e. content meant to be temporary), are not allowed to be uploaded on the Archive of Our Own.”

If you have multiple original works on AO3, you very well could be permanently suspended for violating the terms of service.

Be careful.

bzfd.it
Russia Orders Internet Providers Not To Host The Daily Stormer
“The Daily Stormer website promotes neo-Nazi ideology, raises racial, national and other types of social discord,” the head of Russia's federal communications regulator wrote in a statement.
By Kevin Collier

Shut down by US tech companies, the internet’s biggest neo-Nazi website has been denied sanctuary by Russia, too.

Daily Stormer had on Wednesday attempted to rebrand itself as dailystormer.ru after several American web hosting services, including GoDaddy.com and CloudFlare, pulled their support. The site had acted as a hub for a white supremacists and neo-Nazis who rallied last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a driver killed anti-racist protester Heather Heyer. After her death, the Daily Stormer site began posting offensive content about Heyer, prompting widespread outrage.

But while individual American companies made the decision to refuse to host Daily Stormer, in Russia, where government censorship is far more restrictive, it was a legal matter. Russian law specifically prohibits, among other things, online content that glorifies Naziism.

Alexander Zharov, the head of Russia’s Roskomnadzor, the country’s federal communications regulator, wrote in a statement that it was within his agency’s authority to instruct Russian domain registrars to refuse to host the site.

“The Daily Stormer website promotes neo-Nazi ideology, raises racial, national and other types of social discord,” Zharov wrote. “Russian legislation has an extremely tough regime to counter any manifestations of extremism on the Internet.”

It’s not clear how quickly the Russian state made its decision, but the site was already inaccessible by early afternoon Wednesday, when attempts to reach it were met with a “DNS address not found.”

It’s unclear where the Daily Stormer will try to land next. The site is down, and its Twitter account, which normally would be used to point followers to its next iteration, has been suspended for violating Twitter’s terms of service.

9

Regular Style Full Body Prices: Lines - $25, Flats - $30, Full - $40

All Prices in USD

Commissions are finally OPEN!

Comic and icon commissions will not be a thing as of now but I am working to see if I can do them in the future. You can use the art I make you as an Icon though if you want to.  

Click Here for Terms of Service and how to Contact Me for a Commission!

NCT 127 as Bad Boys

“Hey, so I heard you like bad boys?”

Johnny: Not to brag or anything, but when my mom told me to go straight to my room… I turned a corner.

Yuta: Not to brag or anything, but one time I went to the movies… I didn’t turn off my cell phone.

Jaehyun: Not to brag or anything, but when I play Wii… I sometimes don’t put the safety strap on.

Taeil: Not to brag or anything, but this morning… I ate three vitamins instead of the standard two.

WinWin: Not to brag or anything, but when the teacher said, “Raise your hand if you know the answer”… I knew the answer but I didn’t raise my hand.

Taeyong: Not to brag or anything, but when I go to the pool… I swim without floaties.

Haechan: Not to brag or anything, but when I click the “I’ve read the terms and services”… I actually don’t read them.

Mark: Not to brag or anything, but at night… I sleep without a nightlight.

Doyoung: Not to brag or anything, but one time I entered the mall… I used the exit door.

Exo Version

youtube

Anita Sarkeesian, notable feminist and founder of the Feminist Frequency organization, verbally harassed Youtuber Sargon of Akkad at a panel about combatting harassment yesterday at Vidcon. She has launched a person attack on Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad), calling him a garbage human, and a shit head on stage, to praise from her followers (Garbage human no doubt being an insult her fans will use on him for years to come.). Anita has quite blatantly broke Vidcons terms of service regarding harassment, and so Sargon is requesting that we make Vidcon founders and organizers Hank and John Green aware that this has happened, and request that she is removed from Saturdays panel also about harassment, for flagrantly violating Vidcons terms and guidelines, and for flying in the face of the message of her own panel.

@egaylitarian @michaelam1978 @former-fatty @gamergate-news @bi-and-mighty @apocrypha-mindokah @almightyalmighty

Boost this, and let every one know that one of gamer gates original victims is a harasser of people who just want to watch her panel.

[In 2007], this very conservative “family values” group hated porn, and they hated queer stuff even more, and used “but think of the children, it’s pedophilia!” to pressure LJ to get rid of huge swathes of things they didn’t like.  And one time taking down the worst of it wasn’t good enough for them.  No, this was step one on a moral crusade.  If you acceded to their demands, all that did was whet their appetite, and soon they would be back with a new list of demands.

This is why the 2007 strikethrough was not an isolated event, but rather one of a series of events, nor was LJ the only website thus targeted.  It starts with anything that can get labelled “pedophilia” or “incest” because that’s low-hanging fruit.  But they use that to go after anything relating to queer teen sexuality.  Then anything with teen sexuality.  Then once the community is already divided and diminished, they go after anything with non-con.  Then whatever is next on their list.  It doesn’t stop until they’ve won the point and nothing but suitably “family-friendly” fics that match their purity test are allowed.

Which is why AO3 has no morality content in their terms of service.  You can’t break copyright beyond fair use (and AO3 has an expansive view of “fair use” and a team of lawyers on call).  You can’t use AO3 for commercial advertising.  And you can’t post ACTUAL child pornography, i.e. the things that are legally prohibited, i.e. actual photographs or videos of actual children (not teens) in sexually explicit positions–you know, the stuff that actually hurts kids.  Other than that?  It’s fair game.  You can post anything you want, and the archive will not judge.  There is no handle for the Moral Majority Family-Friendly Thought Police to latch onto, no cracks they can exploit to divide and conquer.

We’ve been down that road.  It doesn’t lead anywhere good.

Exo as “Bad Boys”

“Hey, so I heard you like bad boys?”

Sehun: Not to brag or anything, but when my mom told me to go straight to my room… I turned a corner. 

Chanyeol: Not to brag or anything, but one time I went to the movies… I didn’t turn off my cell phone. 

Baekhyun: Not to brag or anything, but when I play Wii… I sometimes don’t put the safety strap on. 

Lay: Not to brag or anything, but this morning… I ate three vitamins instead of the standard two.

Suho: Not to brag or anything, but when the teacher said, “Raise your hand if you know the answer”… I knew the answer but I didn’t raise my hand. 

Kai: Not to brag or anything, but when I go to the pool… I swim without floaties.

Xiumin: Not to brag or anything, but when I click the “I’ve read the terms and services”… I actually don’t read them. 

Kyungsoo: Not to brag or anything, but at night… I sleep without a nightlight.

Chen: Not to brag or anything, but one time I entered the mall… I used the exit door. 

Reminder that users getting banned from websites for shit they did against the TOS is not the problem anti’s have most of the time, but the selective usage of TOS against the users by the website to them down for having opposing or conservative views. Selective use to the TOS is unacceptable, and if you’re going to shut someone down for breaking them, shut everyone down for breaking them. 

Internet Occult Shops etc

Witchy tumblr, we gotta have a serious discussion about platforms for witch shops and divination payments.

Etsy is notorious for not allowing magical shops, spells, enchanted items, and reiki anything. If you’re one of the ones whose shop is still up, just remember that you’re running on borrowed time.

PayPal also doesn’t allow payments for occult services; its right in their terms of service.

So here’s the discussion part: What are some good alternatives you guys know about?

hiveswap theory

xefros is being somehow set up to be some kind of handmaid figure.

the pieces are all there; he’s very into a sport strongly modeled after the game of pool and heavily associated with the felt, he’s practically already the masculine form of a handmaid…

and then there’s this weird comment from what we can only accurately assumed to be software related to Doc Scratch;

Terms of Service. Xefros is already subject to terms of service to Doc Scratch that he doesn’t even know about.

shit’s gonna go down at some point in the future of Hiveswap and it might not be good for our Tritoh lad.

6

Commissions!! :D

Including the two new-ish categories of simple style and icons!

If you’re interested in getting a commission, please contact me via elvenbeard@gmail.com or instant messenger on tumblr! (I’ll probably be quicker replying on messenger!)

In your initial message please include the following:

  • What type of commission you would like to get (see the above categories)
  • The number of characters you want featured
  • Reference pictures in high quality for character’s faces, clothing, and other important details; especially for faces pictures in good quality are essential, since I use them as direct reference; for simple clothing detailed descriptions are okay too, or a combination of visual reference and description
  • A detailed description of the idea you have for the drawing - pose, colours, mood, background, etc. - the more specific and precise you can be the better :D

What I will draw:

  • OCs and real people (e.g. your best friend, your mum, an OC with a photo as faceclaim)
  • humanoids (humans (real and fictional), elves/dwarfs/qunari/almost all aliens/guild wars characters/races etc.); when in doubt just ask!
  • certain animals
  • nudity & implied nsfw content
  • slight injuries, bruises, etc.
  • with good references I can draw almost anything :D

What I won’t draw:

  • celebrities
  • full on nsfw content that goes in the smut/porn direction
  • topics like rape, hard gore, incest etc.
  • certain characters & pairings (when in doubt just ask!)
  • basically anything that would make me very uncomfortable
  • things I have little to no experience with (like mechas, intricate machines, architectural drawings, etc.) or things that wouldn’t turn out looking at least somewhat decent with my current skill-level. I want you to be happy with the artwork especially because you pay me to draw it.

Payment is done through the Paypal invoice system and all prices are in Euro. 

I work with a queue based on a first-come-first-served principle; once I have all the references I need from you as well as an email address I’ll put you in my commission queue.

An overview of currently open slots in the queue, Terms of Service, and more detailed information on the commission categories, payment, and other ways to support my art can be found on my commission info page :D

Thanks for reading & sharing! ♥

2

[Image Description: Two color blocks in a vertical row, one pink and one black, with text that reads “you are responsible for your own content consumption / you are responsible for your own safety and wellbeing online”]

The entirety of the internet is not a safe space. It has never been a safe space and it will never be a safe space because you will never be able to get the entirety of the internet and everyone on it to bend and change to meet your needs and desires in order to strip it clean of everything that you find distasteful or distressing. That is an impossible battle that, short of the creation of some 1984-esque society and the destruction of all reason and critical thinking and free will in the world, you will never win.

A battle you can win, however, is the one to take responsibility for your own online experience.

Install a blacklist extension that will allow you to block tags as needed. Block people who post things you don’t like. Unfollow people who put things on your dash that make your online experience unpleasant. Request and encourage that people properly tag their posts and mark their blogs as 18+ as that applies.

Do not purposefully ‘hate follow’ blogs who post things you know will upset you. Do not purposefully seek out content you know will trigger you. Do not purposefully engage with people you know you will get nowhere with except mentally frayed and exhausted.

There will always, always, always be things online that you will not like, things that disgust you and even trigger you. If these things are against the law or against a particular site’s terms of service then, by all means, take actions to report those things but the fact is that the vast majority of what you don’t like online will not be against a site’s rules much less against a country’s laws and while we can ask people to properly tag their posts and mark their blogs, attempting to wipe the content they’re posting entirely from existence will be an incredibly futile undertaking to attempt. But what isn’t futile is taking steps to avoid that content and to avoid being in situations online that are detrimental to your online experience and your mental health.

Your online experience is your responsibility. You have the tools at your disposal to make/break the experience you have online. The content you see and engage with is up to you. The entire internet will never change to be what you want and ONLY what you want but you have the ability to make yourself safe from the things on the internet that you wish to stay away from. Use that ability and take responsibility for your own online experience, because no one else is going to do it for you.

anonymous asked:

Is this net neutrality issue very similar to the one that happened in 2015 or are there different factors being threatened?

The current net neutrality debate is an extension of the same net neutrality debate we’ve been having for years. The very short recent history of net neutrality looks something like this: In 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (a government agency that has the authority to regulate communications, such as radio and telephone networks) passed rules preventing Internet service providers from discriminating against or blocking websites that refused to pay for access to end users. In 2014, in response to a lawsuit Verizon filed challenging these rules, a federal court held that the rules weren’t valid because FCC didn’t show that it had the authority to enact rules limiting what ISPs can do to particular Internet traffic. In 2015, after over a year of debate about what the FCC should do next, the FCC enacted even stronger rules than those it passed in 2010, relying on a different source of authority to overcome the legal problem with its 2010 rules. In 2016, a federal court upheld these new net neutrality rules. Today, under new leadership, the FCC wants to undo the rules it put in place in 2015 and basically get rid of net neutrality rules altogether, allowing ISPs to charge websites to communicate with ISP customers and block access to websites that don’t pay. So, in 2015, we were arguing about whether the FCC should put in place weak rules or strong rules (it ended up choosing strong rules), and today, we are arguing about whether the FCC should get rid of those strong rules and instead have basically no rules at all.

It’s the same policy issue, but the positions are reversed — instead of trying to enact rules that protect consumers, the FCC is trying to take those rules down. The rhetoric has changed a lot though: in 2015 most of the big ISPs argued that they should have the right to throttle traffic and charge for fast lanes, but this time around they’re all saying they believe in core net neutrality principles, just not how the FCC has implemented them under Title II.

Comcast and others have even suggested that what we really need is a new net neutrality law passed in Congress, which is very well-intentioned and completely naive because our current Congress can’t pass a bag of M&Ms, let alone a sweeping piece of internet regulation.

This change in tone is probably because most consumers really distrust their ISPs, and net neutrality rules are really popular. So the ISPs are all trying to thread the needle of saying they want to abide by the rules without actually having rules — FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has proposed that every ISP simply promise to uphold net neutrality principles in their terms of service agreements, for example.

It all strikes me as exceedingly silly, like something stoned college freshman would talk about late at night: how can we have laws without really having laws, man? It’s funny, but it’s not any way to make policy around something as important to our lives and economy as internet access.

What is going on today at the FCC is directly related to what happened in 2015. After nearly a year of public comment (with nearly 4 million comments filed) and deliberation, the FCC in 2015 adopted the strongest-ever net neutrality rules grounded in the strongest legal authority (Title II of the Communications Act of 1934). These rules prohibit Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from discriminating against or favoring any content, service or applications. A federal court in Washington, DC upheld these rules specifically because they were grounded in the strongest legal authority

The Trump FCC has started a proceeding to repeal the 2015 rules and reverse the determination that placed ISPs under Title II. Nobody is asking for these changes other than the ISPs themselves – Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Charter. In fact, a poll released yesterday showed that nearly 80% of Americans support the 2015 rules.

What is being threatened by the FCC’s current actions are the rules that the public fought so hard to obtain in 2015 – rules that are both popular and effective and under which ISPs continue to make huge profits and investments.

The issue is the same in that the underlying protections that all of us advocated for (that are now law) are under threat of being removed.

In 2015, the FCC set out to resolve two major issues. The first issue was what should network neutrality rules look like and what activities by ISPs will they cover. The second issue was what is the legal status of broadband companies since they have changed dramatically from the 90s when the Communications Act was originally passed (this is commonly referred to the Title I vs. Title II of the Communications Act issue). Title I of the Communications Act was originally designed for a time when your ISP was also your edge service provider (for those of us old enough to remember, think AOL/Prodigy times). Title II of the Communications Act applies to services that solely transit information (also referred to as common carriers), which back in the day was really just telephone service before broadband became what it is today. The final decision by the FCC was to declare broadband as Title II common carriers and to institute network neutrality rules for them based on their legal status.

Today, the new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has made it clear he does not think broadband service is a common carrier service. As a result, his plan opens the door to allow ISPs to block websites, throttle services, and outright discriminate between services all in the name of “innovation.” This time, the threat is coming from a federal agency whose original job is to protect the public interest and it is being done in concert with companies like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, who stand to gain the most from being freed of any obligation to treat Internet traffic neutrally.

A little legal background may be in order here. ISPs keep trying to argue that they should be seen as a “website” rather than what they really are, a telecommunications service. They want that because then they won’t have to abide by net neutrality rules since the federal courts have ruled that net neutrality only applies to telecommunications services. No one thinks ISPs are websites, yet even the current FCC is trying to argue that ISPs are websites so that they can help ISPs slash net neutrality rules.

In 2015, the last FCC under a different chairman did the right thing after we helped send 4 million comments to the FCC saying that we want the most legally defensible way to protect net neutrality. They then changed the way they classify broadband Internet from an “information service” (like a website or a television channel==obviously false) to a “telecommunications service” (like landline telephone==obviously true). To take away net neutrality, ISPs are back arguing that they are more like websites than telephone systems, and the new FCC Chairman is so closely tied to the industry that he thinks their argument makes sense. That’s how corrupt this whole debate has gotten in D.C.

So, yes, this is similar to what was at stake in 2015. ISPs like Comcast are still trying to get powers to throttle the Internet so they can charge special fees. We are now defending the only legally defensible rules guaranteeing net neutrality, which millions of Internet users fought for and won in 2015.