Editing LiveJournal (section)

==Controversies and criticism==
===Invite system===<!-- This section is linked from LiveJournal -->
From September 2, 2001, until December 12, 2003, the growth of LiveJournal was checked by an [[invitation system|"invite code" system]]. This curbing of membership was necessitated by a rate of growth faster than the server architecture could handle. New users were required to either obtain an invite code from an existing user or buy a paid account (which reverted to a free account at the expiration of the period of time paid for). The invite code system serendipitously reduced abuse on the site by deterring people from creating multiple throw-away accounts. The invite code system was lifted after a number of major improvements to the overall site architecture.

Elimination of the invite code system was met with mixed feelings and some opposition. LiveJournal's management pointed out that the invite code system had always been intended to be temporary.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.livejournal.com/74165.html |title=Post Announcing the End of Invite Codes |publisher=News.livejournal.com |access-date=2010-03-29 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100407100124/http://news.livejournal.com/74165.html |archive-date=2010-04-07 }}</ref>

===The word "friend"===
The dual usage of "friends" as those whose journals one reads, and those one trusts to read one's own journal, has been criticized for being at odds with everyday use of the term. The individual users on a user's friends list may contain a mixture of people met through real world friendships, online friendships and general interests, as well as [[courtesy]] friendships where a user has "[[friending|friend]]ed" someone who friended them. A friends list may represent something entirely unrelated to social relationships, such as a reading list, a collection or a puzzle.<ref>Fono, D. and K. Raynes-Goldie.  [http://k4t3.org/publications/hyperfriendship.pdf "Hyperfriends and Beyond: Friendship and Social Norms on LiveJournal"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070605031535/http://k4t3.org/publications/hyperfriendship.pdf |date=2007-06-05 }}. Internet Research Annual Volume 4: Selected Papers from the Association of Internet Researchers Conference (2006).</ref>

The difference between online and real-world friendships is sometimes a source of conflict, hurt feelings, and other misunderstandings. LiveJournal friendships are not necessarily mutual; any user can befriend or "defriend" any other user at any time.<ref>boyd, danah.  [http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/boyd/index.html "Friends, friendsters, and top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511140201/http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/boyd/index.html |date=2011-05-11 }}.  ''First Monday'', vol. 12, no. 2 (December 2006).</ref>

In the Russian LiveJournal community, the word френд ("friend", an English borrowing) is often used to describe this relationship instead of the native Russian word "друг" ([ drug ]) that translates to "friend".

The [[Dreamwidth]] code fork of LiveJournal has split the 'friend' concept into its two component pieces of subscription and access.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dreamwidth.org/support/faqbrowse?faqid=124 |title=If you're coming from LiveJournal to Dreamwidth: Terminology: Subscribe/Access |publisher=Dreamwidth.org |date=2010-04-24 |access-date=2010-08-05 |archive-date=2010-06-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100621084838/http://www.dreamwidth.org/support/faqbrowse?faqid=124 |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Abuse Prevention Team decisions===
As LiveJournal has grown, it has had to deal with issues involving the content it hosts. Like most web logging hosts, it has adopted a basic [[Terms of Service]].<ref name="TOS">{{cite web |url=http://www.livejournal.com/legal/tos.bml |title=LiveJournal Terms of Service |publisher=Livejournal.com |access-date=2010-03-29 |archive-date=2011-08-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110816041959/http://www.livejournal.com/legal/tos.bml |url-status=live }}</ref> The Terms of Service simultaneously expresses a desire for [[free speech]] by the users while outlining impermissible conduct such as [[spamming]], [[copyright]] violation, and [[harassment]]. LiveJournal created an Abuse Prevention Team and processes to handle claims about violations of the Terms of Service, violations of copyright, violations of the [[law]], and other issues. There is an ability for a user to report an entry as "spam", and it is a user's responsibility to separate spamming and bot activity from actual violations while reporting.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.livejournal.com/support/faq/209.html |title=Spam |publisher=Community.livejournal.com |access-date=2012-11-10 |archive-date=2012-11-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121109065828/http://www.livejournal.com/support/faq/209.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

If the Abuse Prevention Team determines that a violation has occurred, the user will be either required to remove the infringing material (as in the case of copyright violations);<ref name="TOS"/> the journal will be suspended until such time as the material can be removed (e.g., posting of home addresses or other various contact information of another); or, in cases of severe or multiple violations, the journal will be suspended (e.g., account hijacking, multiple instances of copyright violation, child pornography).<ref name="TOS"/> The offending user is notified by email of any journal suspension or, if any offending material must be removed, the user is given a deadline for its removal. When a journal is suspended, it effectively removes from sight everything the user has written on LiveJournal, including comments in other people's journals; however, the user is able to download the material while suspended. Those suspended users who have paid for LiveJournal's service do not have payments refunded.

A small controversy arose in November 2004 when a policy document used by the Abuse Prevention Team was leaked to a group of its critics before it was due to be released. The policy document has since been officially released.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.livejournal.com/abuse/policy.bml |title=LiveJournal Abuse Policies and Procedures |publisher=Livejournal.com |access-date=2010-03-29 |archive-date=2010-04-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100409232901/http://www.livejournal.com/abuse/policy.bml |url-status=live }}</ref>

Another controversy arose when users complained after an unknown number of users were asked to remove default user pictures containing images of breast feeding that were considered inappropriate as they contained a view of nipples or areolae.<ref>{{cite web|author=Response from Six Apart May. 24th, 2006 at 3:00 PM |url=http://community.livejournal.com/boob_nazis/1763041.html |title=Response from Six Apart on Breastfeeding Userpic Controversy |publisher=Community.livejournal.com |date=2006-05-24 |access-date=2010-03-29 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061022210621/http://community.livejournal.com/boob_nazis/1763041.html |archive-date=2006-10-22 }}</ref> The incident attracted the attention of [[lactivism|breast feeding advocacy]] groups such as Pro-Mom<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.promom.org/bf_info/pr.html |title=Popular Blogging Site Restricts Use of Breastfeeding Photos |publisher=Promom.org |access-date=2010-03-29 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091218105330/http://www.promom.org/bf_info/pr.html |archive-date=2009-12-18 }}</ref> who publicized the issue to gain larger media awareness. LiveJournal responded by changing the FAQ on appropriate content for default user pictures. The current FAQ 111 says that nudity is not appropriate in ''default'' user pictures; the original FAQ 111 said that graphic sexual content was not appropriate. Breastfeeding pictures were not restricted by the original FAQ, and the current FAQ reflects the fact that they are only restricted from use as a default user picture.<ref>{{cite web |last=Haines |first=Lester |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/01/livejournal_kerfuffle/ |title=LiveJournal tells lactating mums to put 'em away |publisher=Theregister.co.uk |date=2006-06-01 |access-date=2010-03-29 |archive-date=2010-06-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100606165041/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/01/livejournal_kerfuffle/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Breastfeeding pictures are still allowed as user pictures that may be manually chosen while posting but may not be the default.

===Account vulnerabilities===
In January 2006 the site had to make emergency changes to the way the site hosts [[user accounts]] due to a [[web browser]]-side security [[Vulnerability (computing)|vulnerability]]. The hacker group responsible was later identified as "Bantown". Approximately 900,000 accounts were at risk.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Krebs |first=Brian |url=http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/01/account_hijackings_force_livej.html |title=Account Hijackings Force LiveJournal Changes |publisher=[[The Washington Post]] |work=Security Fix |date=January 20, 2006 |access-date=2010-03-29 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110503233908/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/01/account_hijackings_force_livej.html |archive-date=May 3, 2011 }}</ref>

===LiveJournal and advertisements===
In April 2006, LiveJournal announced<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.livejournal.com/91919.html |title=news: Introducing a new account level |publisher=News.livejournal.com |date=2006-04-18 |access-date=2012-07-06 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120316225101/http://news.livejournal.com/91919.html |archive-date=2012-03-16 }}</ref> it was introducing a new user type that gave free users some of the features available to paid members in exchange for ad sponsorship. This user type was initially called Sponsored+, but was later renamed to Plus.

This announcement was met with a whirlwind of controversy. Between April 2004 and January 2005, one of LiveJournal's Social Contract promises stated the site would, "Stay advertisement free." The Social Contract went on to say, "It may be because it's one of our biggest pet peeves, or it may be because they don't garner a lot of money, but nonetheless, we promise to never offer advertising space in our service or on our pages."<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20040401175244/http://www.livejournal.com/site/contract.bml LiveJournal Social Contract] (old page, archived by the Internet Archive)</ref>

Another ad-related controversy occurred in June 2006, when ads for Kpremium began installing [[malware]] and triggering [[pop-up ads]] on Australian and Western European users' computers,<ref name="community.livejournal.com">{{cite web|url=http://community.livejournal.com/lj_ads/4176.html |title=Lj_ads: Kpremium advertisements |access-date=2006-06-26 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071117193641/http://community.livejournal.com/lj_ads/4176.html |archive-date=2007-11-17 }}</ref> against the LiveJournal ad guidelines.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.livejournal.com/support/faqbrowse.bml?faqid=265 |title=What are LiveJournal's guidelines on acceptable ads? |publisher=Livejournal.com |date=2009-12-07 |access-date=2010-03-29 |archive-date=2010-05-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100522004305/http://www.livejournal.com/support/faqbrowse.bml?faqid=265 |url-status=live }}</ref> LiveJournal responded by removing the advertisement from the website and issuing an apology to its users.<ref name="community.livejournal.com"/>

In March 2008, LiveJournal discontinued the ability for new users to select the "basic" level of journal, which allowed for a minimal set of features with no advertising at no cost.<ref name="no basic"/> However, in August of the same year, the company reversed the decision, reviving "basic" service as a manual, post-registration downgrade. However, the resumed basic service level is no longer ad-free: advertisements are displayed when readers who are not logged into livejournal view postings on a basic account.<ref name="basic returns">{{cite web|url=http://community.livejournal.com/lj_2008/4979.html |title=Basic Accounts Decision |publisher=Community.livejournal.com |access-date=2010-03-29 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090123114501/http://community.livejournal.com/lj_2008/4979.html |archive-date=2009-01-23 }}</ref>

Advertisement in LiveJournal is based on the user's preferable categories, gender, age, location, interests, or a small portion of public page contents. Ads are targeted according to information about the author, the viewer, and LiveJournal's ad preferences as a whole. Users can choose the preferences in their settings<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.livejournal.com/manage/settings/?cat=advertising |title=advertising |publisher=News.livejournal.com |access-date=2012-11-18 |archive-date=2012-11-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121109015755/http://www.livejournal.com/manage/settings/?cat=advertising |url-status=live }}</ref> among five or more categories of advertising, including Art & Humanities, Cars & Wheels, Books & Reading, Charities, Home & Hobbies, Housing, Internet & Media etc.
It is not possible to completely remove the advertisement other than by upgrading to a Paid Account.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.livejournal.com/support/faq/263.html |title=Introducing a new account level |publisher=News.livejournal.com |access-date=2012-11-18 |archive-date=2012-11-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121118120609/http://www.livejournal.com/support/faq/263.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

As part of changes made in April 2017, Livejournal eliminated the ability of paid contributors to prevent ads being shown to their readers. Instead, LiveJournal began showing ads on all pages, including postings by paid contributors, unless the reader of the page was also a logged-in paid contributor.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://news.livejournal.com/151767.html|title=LiveJournal: Important Updates {{!}} 2017-04-04 03:04:00 |website=news.livejournal.com|access-date=2020-12-20|archive-date=2020-10-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201029200841/https://news.livejournal.com/151767.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Account suspension ===
In May 2007, LiveJournal suspended approximately 500 accounts and communities, causing what [[CNET]] referred to as a "revolt" from "thousands of LiveJournal customers",<ref name="cnet">{{cite web|first=Declan |last=McCullagh |url=http://news.cnet.com/Mass+deletion+sparks+LiveJournal+revolt/2100-1025_3-6187619.html |title=Mass deletion sparks LiveJournal revolt |date=May 30, 2007 |publisher=[[CNET Networks|CNet News.com]] |access-date=2010-03-29 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120714131202/http://news.cnet.com/Mass-deletion-sparks-LiveJournal-revolt/2100-1025_3-6187619.html |archive-date=July 14, 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref> after a number of activist groups, including one named Warriors for Innocence, reported pedophilic material on its website.<ref name="cnet"/><ref name="inquirer">{{cite web |url=http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40013 |title=Live Journal does a u-turn on online book burning |publisher=Theinquirer.net |access-date=2010-03-29 |url-status=unfit |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070707220510/http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40013 |archive-date=2007-07-07 }}</ref><ref name="firefox">{{cite web |author=Published 30 May 2007 |url=http://firefox.org/news/articles/408/1/Six-Apart-Deletes-500-LiveJournals-Many-Fannish/Page1.html |title=Six Apart Deletes 500 LiveJournals, Many Fannish |publisher=Firefox.org |access-date=2010-03-29 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100226081112/http://firefox.org/news/articles/408/1/Six-Apart-Deletes-500-LiveJournals-Many-Fannish/Page1.html |archive-date=26 February 2010 }}</ref>{{Unreliable source?|date=January 2009}}<ref name="informationweek">{{cite web |url=http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/05/child_sex_crack.html |title=Child Sex Crackdown Causes Problems For LiveJournal |publisher=Informationweek.com |access-date=2010-03-29 |archive-date=2009-06-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090601030633/http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/05/child_sex_crack.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="afterelton">{{cite web |last=Keith |first=Christie |url=http://www.afterelton.com/blog/christiekeith/live-journal-the-blogging-platform-that-gay-sex-built |title=LiveJournal: The blogging platform that gay sex built |publisher=Afterelton.com |access-date=2010-03-29 |archive-date=2009-07-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090722014218/http://www.afterelton.com/blog/christiekeith/live-journal-the-blogging-platform-that-gay-sex-built |url-status=live }}</ref>

According to Six Apart chairman and chief executive Barak Berkowitz, "We did a review of our policies related to how we review those sites, those journals, and came up with the fact that we actually did have a number of journals up that we didn't think met our policies and didn't think they were appropriate to have up".<ref name="cnet" /> In a subsequent posting to the LiveJournal news community,<ref name=screwed/> he apologized, discussed some of the circumstances behind the suspensions, and indicated that the suspended journals would be reviewed and potentially brought back online. In particular, he noted that Livejournal's normal practice of reviewing suspensions and notifying suspended account holders had not been followed:
<blockquote><nowiki>[T]hese</nowiki> journals were suspended for easily correctable problems <nowiki>[...] [T]his</nowiki> was not communicated to the journal or community owners at all.
<nowiki>[T]hese</nowiki> journals were taken down before review could be completed to avoid mistakes.</blockquote>

Most of the backlash was from [[fan fiction]] writers whose communities and personal journals were among those suspended, seemingly because they listed interests such as "[[incest]]" or "non-con" (short for non-consensual).<ref name="cnet" /> Although these communities did not necessarily encourage illegal behavior, it has been reported that there was no further investigation into the content of these journals.<ref name=screwed>{{cite web | url=https://news.livejournal.com/99159.html | title=Well we really screwed this one up… | publisher=LiveJournal | date=May 31, 2007 | access-date=November 8, 2020 | archive-date=November 9, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109024737/https://news.livejournal.com/99159.html | url-status=live }}</ref>

Beyond merely fan communities, many were initially upset that communities entirely unrelated to anything but the discussion, sometimes therapeutic and other times literary, of rape or child molestation were among those suspended.<ref name="cnet" />

On May 31, 2007, Berkowitz released a statement to the LiveJournal news community<ref>{{cite web | url=https://news.livejournal.com/99515.html | title=Journals being restored | publisher=LiveJournal | date=May 31, 2007 | access-date=November 8, 2020 | archive-date=October 29, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201029205600/https://news.livejournal.com/99515.html | url-status=live }}</ref> announcing that Six Apart was currently in the process of unsuspending about half of suspended journals. The journals being reinstated fell into fandom or fiction categories or were journals that were suspended for problems related only to the contents of their profiles. In an earlier interview with [[news.com]],<ref name="cnet"/> he had stated that he would be "shocked" if "more than a dozen" journals would be reinstated.

On July 19, 2007, Abe Hassan at LiveJournal released a statement clarifying LiveJournal's suspension policies.<ref>{{cite web |author=Abe Hassan (burr86) wrote in lj_biz, 2007-07-19 22:03:00 |url=https://lj-biz.livejournal.com/241428.html |title=lj_biz: more clarifications |publisher=LiveJournal |date=July 19, 2007 |access-date=2020-11-08 |archive-date=2020-11-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201114104955/https://lj-biz.livejournal.com/241428.html |url-status=live }}</ref> A further statement was made on August 7, 2007.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://lj-biz.livejournal.com/241884.html |title=lj_biz: Illegal and Harmful Content Policy Clarifications |publisher=Livejournal |date=August 7, 2007 |access-date=November 8, 2020 |archive-date=September 22, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200922025259/https://lj-biz.livejournal.com/241884.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Advisory board election===
As previously announced, SUP Media, the latest owners of LiveJournal, decided to create an advisory board to help it make decisions. The first members were distinguished people in the areas of law and technology, [[danah boyd]], [[Esther Dyson]], [[Lawrence Lessig]], and the original LiveJournal founder, Brad Fitzpatrick. SUP announced two other members would be appointed from the LiveJournal userbase, one Russian and one English speaking.<ref>{{cite press release| url=https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20080505005563/en/LiveJournal-User-Election-Opens-Advisory-Board-Bloggers| title=LiveJournal User Election Opens Up Advisory Board to Bloggers| publisher=[[Business Wire]]| access-date=2020-11-08| archive-date=2021-06-12| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210612134601/https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20080505005563/en/LiveJournal-User-Election-Opens-Advisory-Board-Bloggers| url-status=live}}</ref> The English speaking election was marred with accusations of [[ballot stuffing]], conflicts of interest, and multiple death threats. The developer who wrote the poll software running the election called the ballot stuffing plausible.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://valleywag.com/394077/social-networks-advisory+board-election-sparks-talk-of-death-threats | title= LiveJournal: Social network's advisory-board election sparks talk of death threats | publisher= valleywag.com | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080601051658/http://valleywag.com/394077/social-networks-advisory+board-election-sparks-talk-of-death-threats |archive-date = 2008-06-01}}</ref>

===Distributed denial-of-service attacks===
LiveJournal was the victim of several [[DoS|DDoS]] attacks in 2011. The first attack on March 30 took down the site for several hours. The attack is reported to be the largest DDoS attack against LiveJournal since the site's creation. A second attack continued through April 4 and 5, causing service disruption for some users.<ref>{{cite web|title=DDoS Attack on LiveJournal|url=http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/04/06/russia-ddos-attack-on-livejournal-has-russians-debating-internet-politics/|work=Global Voices, English|date=6 April 2011|access-date=2011-07-28|archive-date=2011-08-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110823072953/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/04/06/russia-ddos-attack-on-livejournal-has-russians-debating-internet-politics/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Why Have Hackers Hit Russia's Most Popular Blogging Service?|first=Simon|last=Schuster|newspaper=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]|date=2011-04-07|url=http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2063952,00.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110410224600/http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2063952,00.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=April 10, 2011}}</ref> A third attack in July caused the site to be unavailable for several hours at a time for a week.<ref>{{cite news
|title=Hacker Attacks paralyze LiveJournal
|url=http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/hacker-attacks-paralyze-livejournal/441237.html
|access-date=2011-07-28
|newspaper=The Moscow Times
|date=2011-07-28
|archive-date=2011-08-12
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110812173332/http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/hacker-attacks-paralyze-livejournal/441237.html
|url-status=live
}}</ref> On December 2, 2011, another attack was recorded, with LiveJournal's status blog acknowledging it as such. Of the attacks, Russian president [[Dmitry Medvedev]] commented in April 2011 that "what has occurred should be examined by LiveJournal's administration and law enforcement agencies."<ref>[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/08/russian_ddos_assaults/ Russian pres fumes at mystery DDoS hack] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170707124013/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/08/russian_ddos_assaults/ |date=2017-07-07 }}. The Register. Retrieved 2011-12-02.</ref>

On [[2011 Russian legislative election|Russia's election day]] in December 2011, LiveJournal saw another attack.<ref>Ioffe, Julia, [https://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/12/russian-elections-faking-it.html "Russian Elections: Faking It"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140407120856/http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/12/russian-elections-faking-it.html |date=2014-04-07 }}, ''The New Yorker'' blogpost, December 5, 2011. Retrieved 2011-12-06.</ref>

===Presumed database breach===
In October 2018, [[Troy Hunt]], creator of the [[Have I Been Pwned?]] site, tweeted that he was getting multiple independent reports that email addresses and passwords from the LiveJournal user database were being used in a scam email campaign.<ref>Hunt, Troy, [https://twitter.com/troyhunt/status/1050391317266620416 "I’m getting multiple independent reports of a @LiveJournal compromise, anyone else?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201024091946/https://twitter.com/troyhunt/status/1050391317266620416 |date=2020-10-24 }}, October 11, 2018. Retrieved 2018-10-11.</ref>

In May 2020, admins at [[Dreamwidth]] reported that they had repeatedly warned LiveJournal of an apparent breach with exposure of LiveJournal passwords, dating back to 2017 or 2014, but that LiveJournal had declined to disclose this to their users.<ref>{{Cite web|title=dw_news {{!}} PSA: Likely LiveJournal password compromise|url=https://dw-news.dreamwidth.org/40167.html|access-date=2021-06-22|website=dw-news.dreamwidth.org|language=en|archive-date=2021-06-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210629134825/https://dw-news.dreamwidth.org/40167.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

This information was also passed on to (or somehow otherwise received by) the MyIDCare website (url=https://opm.myidcare.com), a site that was created in 2015 for Federal employees or retirees, who were given free lifetime monitoring to this service by the Office of Personnel Management (the "opm" in the URL), an agency of the Federal Government, after the personal information of millions of people was compromised in a major data breach involving approximately 21,500,000 records in that year (which was made even more serious by the fact that some of the compromised data included information such as fingerprints, which helped this breach gain national attention.<ref>{{Cite web|title=What are the Worst Government Data Breaches?|url=https://www.fedsmith.com/2019/08/07/worst-government-data-breaches/|access-date=2022-11-06|website=www.fedsmith.com|language=en|archive-date=2022-11-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221106221018/https://www.fedsmith.com/2019/08/07/worst-government-data-breaches/|url-status=live}}</ref> The MyIDCare site sent out an alert (dated May 22, 2020) to their previously registered users about a potential data breach at LiveJournal and requested that users change their passwords to protect those accounts against potentially fraudulent activity.