"Either you have a grassroots social network where fans can do whatever they want that will always struggle due to lack of corporate sponsorship dollars, or you have a large and stable social network funded by corporate dollars that has to restrict some content in order to get the money to run well."
Wrong. LJ WAS something close to a grassroots thingy. It did not have to pursue commercially the goal fo becoming the most bloated thing ever, and it did not have to decide that it survival was more important than the continued wellbeing and happy being fot he members that made it what it is. Funded by corporate dollars? yes, why? because these corporate dollars wanted access to my fucking eyeballs. my continued attentive presence. and/or by paid-account money. Well, they won't get none of it anymore.
I am not surprised. I am not hysterical. I am also not amused, don't find it pleasant, don't want to put my trust or money into an organisation that behaves like this. that is all.
It did not have to pursue commercially the goal fo becoming the most bloated thing ever, and it did not have to decide that it survival was more important than the continued wellbeing and happy being fot he members that made it what it is.
There's nothing inherently evil in choosing to operate for profit. (And obviously I don't think LJ would agree that their goal was to become "the most bloated thing ever." I suspect their goal was more like "become a centralized social networking hub," which they've certainly succeeded at. To me they're a bit like Microsoft Word now: cumbersome, with some frustrations, but such an industry standard you can't go without it.)
don't want to put my trust or money into an organisation that behaves like this.As it is LJ's prerogative to be an organization like this, so it is your prerogative to choose to exit it. Like I said, though, I don't think they're behaving all that strangely, and I really don't think you're going to find a place that can give you LJ's consistent uptime with JF's post-
( ... )
I suspect their goal was more like "become a centralized social networking hub,"
Nah. Their goal was to turn a profit. They don't give a damn about being a centralized social networking hub except insofar as it can make them money. Which, cool, whatever. But they're not getting any more of my money. Of course they have the right to run their site however they see fit, but I think the way they're doing it is confusing and hamfisted. I'm not interested in giving money to a site that will delete a user's entire journal because one right-wing nutjob points to one post that violates the fuzzy definitions in the TOS. They could give a warning, they could delete the post, they could insist the user make it private - there are a dozen ways they could handle it that don't include deleting years worth of posts. That's just bullshit, and seriously bad customer service.
Okay, their goal was "become a centralized social networking hub for profit." I should've been clearer. I didn't think they were trying to become a centralized social networking hub for the betterment of society, alas.
hey could give a warning, they could delete the post, they could insist the user make it privateI don't know about deleting the post, but it's my understanding that the other two options leave LJ open to severe liability. Quoting myself from another reply
( ... )
I don't think they're trying to extinguish fandom, I think they're indifferent to fandom and to fans, which is fine except for how it is that we're among their customers. They've had plenty of time to learn how to do this. The only company I regularly interact with that seems to have less concern for how it treats its clients is eBay, which seems to actually have it in for its large sellers. So, they keep proving they don't know how to provide good customer service, to communicate effectively with their customers, etc., then where's my incentive to stick around? because it's got good up-time? That's not enough.
"Either you have a grassroots social network where fans can do whatever they want that will always struggle due to lack of corporate sponsorship dollars, or you have a large and stable social network funded by corporate dollars that has to restrict some content in order to get the money to run well."
Wrong.
Given how unequivocally you stated that I am in error, I assume you can show me a grassroots social network succeeding financially to prove that I am wrong?
I'm not sure how you mean it, but I think there's a difference between "succeeding financially" and "not struggl[ing] due to lack of corporate sponsorship dollars." LJ wasn't struggling when they weren't pursuing corporate dollars, or at least not struggling so much that I ever noticed. Maybe they were crying on the inside, but I think that's the example ana gave: LJ was succeeding just fine as a grassroots social network where people could post what they want, if "succeeding" doesn't necessarily mean "making tons of cash".
Good point. However, if LJ said, "We're doing okay financially, but we could do better by taking on more sponsors," then...why would that be bad? Capitalist, yes, but hey, that's what our society's founded on.
A band starts out small and has lots of intimate fan contact, then becomes such a big commodity that Pepsi-Cola sponsors their tours and only a tiny fraction of the fan base ever gets to meet the band anymore. Is that selling out or is that shrewd management of a business opportunity? Is it violently lashing out against the core fan group or is it just trying to manage something that's become so popular the old business model no longer supports it?
The problem with your analogy is that the band's fans aren't depending on the band for a place to host their own work. The band doesn't delete content when they don't show up for autograph signings, and in most cases the music doesn't even suffer any more than it would if they weren't successful.
In LJ's case, they're pissing on people who've been with them for a long time, and that's totally their prerogative, but I don't have to support it. Also, the fact that our society is founded on capitalism and the free market economy is part of why we're so screwed in the head. I think it is bad, though it's also what we're stuck with.
I kinda think the fact that they did sell out implies that they knew the way they were running things was not something they could maintain indefinitely. I think the fact that we can see such a huge difference between LJ and all the LJ-clone sites -- it is universally accepted that in terms of features, we'll be worse off anywhere else we go -- is proof that while you may be able to copy code and host a social networking site, you have to make some serious trades if you aren't answering to a larger business.
I'd like to be proven wrong on this, but I think the fact that there is no better site than LJ and that the fan-run archive hasn't gelled into place yet is pretty telling evidence that it ain't so easy to do the grassroots thing as we would all like to believe.
I don't think it is easy. My issue with LJ isn't that it's trying to make money, it's that it hasn't yet figured out a way to communicate with its users clearly and effectively or to provide me with the level of customer service I think they should be able to. Deleting whole journals without warning because of one problem post? 'cause don't tell me they don't have the capability to either delete the post themselves or make it private
( ... )
Wrong. LJ WAS something close to a grassroots thingy. It did not have to pursue commercially the goal fo becoming the most bloated thing ever, and it did not have to decide that it survival was more important than the continued wellbeing and happy being fot he members that made it what it is. Funded by corporate dollars? yes, why? because these corporate dollars wanted access to my fucking eyeballs. my continued attentive presence. and/or by paid-account money. Well, they won't get none of it anymore.
I am not surprised. I am not hysterical. I am also not amused, don't find it pleasant, don't want to put my trust or money into an organisation that behaves like this. that is all.
Reply
There's nothing inherently evil in choosing to operate for profit. (And obviously I don't think LJ would agree that their goal was to become "the most bloated thing ever." I suspect their goal was more like "become a centralized social networking hub," which they've certainly succeeded at. To me they're a bit like Microsoft Word now: cumbersome, with some frustrations, but such an industry standard you can't go without it.)
don't want to put my trust or money into an organisation that behaves like this.As it is LJ's prerogative to be an organization like this, so it is your prerogative to choose to exit it. Like I said, though, I don't think they're behaving all that strangely, and I really don't think you're going to find a place that can give you LJ's consistent uptime with JF's post- ( ... )
Reply
Nah. Their goal was to turn a profit. They don't give a damn about being a centralized social networking hub except insofar as it can make them money. Which, cool, whatever. But they're not getting any more of my money. Of course they have the right to run their site however they see fit, but I think the way they're doing it is confusing and hamfisted. I'm not interested in giving money to a site that will delete a user's entire journal because one right-wing nutjob points to one post that violates the fuzzy definitions in the TOS. They could give a warning, they could delete the post, they could insist the user make it private - there are a dozen ways they could handle it that don't include deleting years worth of posts. That's just bullshit, and seriously bad customer service.
Reply
Okay, their goal was "become a centralized social networking hub for profit." I should've been clearer. I didn't think they were trying to become a centralized social networking hub for the betterment of society, alas.
hey could give a warning, they could delete the post, they could insist the user make it privateI don't know about deleting the post, but it's my understanding that the other two options leave LJ open to severe liability. Quoting myself from another reply ( ... )
Reply
Reply
"Either you have a grassroots social network where fans can do whatever they want that will always struggle due to lack of corporate sponsorship dollars, or you have a large and stable social network funded by corporate dollars that has to restrict some content in order to get the money to run well."
Wrong.
Given how unequivocally you stated that I am in error, I assume you can show me a grassroots social network succeeding financially to prove that I am wrong?
Reply
Reply
A band starts out small and has lots of intimate fan contact, then becomes such a big commodity that Pepsi-Cola sponsors their tours and only a tiny fraction of the fan base ever gets to meet the band anymore. Is that selling out or is that shrewd management of a business opportunity? Is it violently lashing out against the core fan group or is it just trying to manage something that's become so popular the old business model no longer supports it?
Reply
In LJ's case, they're pissing on people who've been with them for a long time, and that's totally their prerogative, but I don't have to support it. Also, the fact that our society is founded on capitalism and the free market economy is part of why we're so screwed in the head. I think it is bad, though it's also what we're stuck with.
Reply
I'd like to be proven wrong on this, but I think the fact that there is no better site than LJ and that the fan-run archive hasn't gelled into place yet is pretty telling evidence that it ain't so easy to do the grassroots thing as we would all like to believe.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment