![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On the recent LJ controversies
[I was responding to a posting by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
liamstliam on the current LJ uproar. Reading through it, I think it deserves a top-post, so here's a slightly tweaked version.]
I kind of fall in the middle, between the outraged and those who think it's all a big over-reaction. I wasn't particularly upset by the free-account change (which I think is a perfectly reasonable business decision, and not likely to make such a big difference in practice), and while I was concerned about the interests filter, I was more worried about it driving people away than anything else. (It was a stupid and rude change, but really mattered mainly on the symbolic level: in *concrete* terms, I think it was pretty marginal.)
That said, I do think the hullaballo is perfectly reasonable and appropriate. At its heart is an important question: who really owns LiveJournal as a social entity?
I mean, it's not that different from the controversies surrounding the SCA, Inc -- or even some of the ones around the federal government. In all cases, there is a legal entity that has all the formal power, but in a sense its *moral* authority flows from the relatively powerless people who comprise that entity. The legal entity has the *power* to change things, but it is less clear whether it has the *right* to do so.
In all of these cases, the "citizens" mostly have one recourse if they disagree: making a big stink about it. It's really a rather decent market-based solution to the problem. If enough people to matter object loudly, the "government" tends to recant unless there were damned good reasons for the change. (Certain recent shameless US administrations being the exception that proves the rule.) If the citizens don't object all that loudly, the government takes their silence as consent, and assumes that it is following an appropriate course.
(Of course, there are often harsher options, including violence against the government or moving out of the entity entirely. Those are sometimes necessary, but usually have all sorts of unfortunate side-effects, so they're generally best not used as a first option.)
So I don't have a problem with the big stink. It caused a very quick revocation of the interests filter, which doesn't surprise me: I suspect that that was a fairly casual stupid decision on somebody's part, and the company wasn't deeply invested in it. They haven't reversed the decision to remove Basic accounts, which also doesn't surprise me: I'd bet that that was a cold-blooded business decision, made with full knowledge that people would be cranky about it, and they're not going to back down.
All of this strikes me as the correct responses of an active citizenry, and I think that's healthy: it indicates that many members of LJ regard themselves as part of a community, not just consumers of a service, and that's important in any meaningful social entity.
(And mind, I say all of this knowing full well that, if CommYou succeeds, I'm going to be on the receiving end of some of those stinks down the road. Best to figure out my philosophy now, so that I can react more consistently and sensibly when the time comes...)
liamstliam on the current LJ uproar. Reading through it, I think it deserves a top-post, so here's a slightly tweaked version.]I kind of fall in the middle, between the outraged and those who think it's all a big over-reaction. I wasn't particularly upset by the free-account change (which I think is a perfectly reasonable business decision, and not likely to make such a big difference in practice), and while I was concerned about the interests filter, I was more worried about it driving people away than anything else. (It was a stupid and rude change, but really mattered mainly on the symbolic level: in *concrete* terms, I think it was pretty marginal.)
That said, I do think the hullaballo is perfectly reasonable and appropriate. At its heart is an important question: who really owns LiveJournal as a social entity?
I mean, it's not that different from the controversies surrounding the SCA, Inc -- or even some of the ones around the federal government. In all cases, there is a legal entity that has all the formal power, but in a sense its *moral* authority flows from the relatively powerless people who comprise that entity. The legal entity has the *power* to change things, but it is less clear whether it has the *right* to do so.
In all of these cases, the "citizens" mostly have one recourse if they disagree: making a big stink about it. It's really a rather decent market-based solution to the problem. If enough people to matter object loudly, the "government" tends to recant unless there were damned good reasons for the change. (Certain recent shameless US administrations being the exception that proves the rule.) If the citizens don't object all that loudly, the government takes their silence as consent, and assumes that it is following an appropriate course.
(Of course, there are often harsher options, including violence against the government or moving out of the entity entirely. Those are sometimes necessary, but usually have all sorts of unfortunate side-effects, so they're generally best not used as a first option.)
So I don't have a problem with the big stink. It caused a very quick revocation of the interests filter, which doesn't surprise me: I suspect that that was a fairly casual stupid decision on somebody's part, and the company wasn't deeply invested in it. They haven't reversed the decision to remove Basic accounts, which also doesn't surprise me: I'd bet that that was a cold-blooded business decision, made with full knowledge that people would be cranky about it, and they're not going to back down.
All of this strikes me as the correct responses of an active citizenry, and I think that's healthy: it indicates that many members of LJ regard themselves as part of a community, not just consumers of a service, and that's important in any meaningful social entity.
(And mind, I say all of this knowing full well that, if CommYou succeeds, I'm going to be on the receiving end of some of those stinks down the road. Best to figure out my philosophy now, so that I can react more consistently and sensibly when the time comes...)
no subject
The SCA started as a hobby - a community, if you will - of like-minded people. The BOD was originally set up to support the community and be subordinate to it. (At least, in theory.) The point of the SCA is not to support the BOD.
LiveJournal, on the other hand, is a *product* - just like CommYou will be, someday. Presumably created for some kind of profit, somewhere (I don't think this is all freeware, is it?). Now, one of the best ways to *make* profit is to get more customers, and make them feel all warm and cozy and Part Of It All - Part of the Community, and all that. But that's not the point of the enterprise. The point of the enterprise is to make money.
If the community gets angry at you, then certainly that will have consequences, money-wise, especially if the customers leave. In that sense, a hullabaloo will get attention. But I don't consider myself a "citizen" of LJ the way I am a "citizen" of the SCA, and I would think it would be dangerous to expect a business to act in any way other than in its own best interest. (See: Superfund sites, exploding Pintos, etc.)
no subject
Things have changed a LOT since I started, and that was 2002. Back then you had to know someone to even start an account; someone who was already part of the community had to agree to let you in (via a referral system). It wasn't bulletproof, but it was a different community.
re: customers
chiefsole selling point.no subject
I mean, really -- how *is* SUP (the owner of LJ) different from the SCA, Inc? They're both commercial entities that exist essentially to provide services to a community. Yes, one is for-profit and the other isn't, but that's a rather fine line to draw, and means less than most people think.
Similarly, how is LJ different from the SCA on a social level? Yes, you are a member of LJ who feels rather casually about it -- similarly, I'd guess that the considerable majority of SCA participants don't give all that much of a damn about the Society in the large, but just care about their friends in it. There are differences, but I suspect that, if you step back and look at both entities in the aggregate, they are more alike than you're giving them credit for...