my recession stressed 2 cents (made public by request)

[crafting_change]

I have a lot of friends doing the 'LJ Strike' now, and while I will respect their wishes and not comment/view their journals, I have some thoughts/concerns to untangle

Comments

[static_hiss]

Good points, here.

Personally I think a longer "blackout" period would be needed. One day isn't much, especially since most LJ'ers don't seem to know about the protest and are still posting anyway. But if it went on for a whole week (or longer) more people might catch on and it might actually get some higher-up's attention. As it is right now, I can't help but think of the posting strike as a hissy-fit, like a child threatening to hold their breath until they pass out. Just not posting for one day isn't hard, and LJ'ers who are participating aren't showing they're willing to really work for it. But then, that's a very common perception about activism, these days. I used to think that way, when I was 18, I thought vegetarianism was activism, I thought showing up to an anti-war protest was "activism".

I think this: Homophobia, misogyny, and racism must not be a part of the decision making processes about appropriate content of the site, including what user interests are deemed appropriate. is referring to the removal of certain interests (e.g. bisexuality) from the "popular interests" page. I still don't know all the context about that; I only read a post on feminist that still left me wanting for more background. But honestly, I think LJ shows more -isms in their enforcement (or lack thereof) of abuse claims than in the filtering of popular interests. I don't know how many times I've seen the LJ Abuse team refuse to take any action on someone who comes into a queer-related community and spew hateful bullshit. Essentially they always say, "The community maintainer can ban them but we don't see any breaking of the TOS" and that is a complete cop-out. What it says is, "You can ban bigots from your community but they're still welcome on LJ."

[crafting_change]

Essentially they always say, "The community maintainer can ban them but we don't see any breaking of the TOS" and that is a complete cop-out. What it says is, "You can ban bigots from your community but they're still welcome on LJ."
My LJ is obviously mostly FO, and I mod one of the most heavily moderated and still flame-rific communities and I understand the frustration.

The problem is LJ has never promoted itself as an activist, progressive, or even liberal based business. At first it was more of an open source blog option, and now it is more of a business model. And so while I definitely wish they did not allow hate speach, that they didn't allow trolling, etc... they are still keeping with a business model that encompasses a wide range of users. I know that I forget how wide of a range LJ has until I look through all of the folks who apply for F, and still that is a hella small sample of individuals. In being all things to all people (for profit - but originally from a 'look at this cool thing all folks can use' standpoint) it is obviously going to fall short in a lot of ways.