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-whatever-you-want mentality. If you do, I'd go there in a heartbeat.
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 private
I 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:
LJ opens itself up to huge liability if it says, basically, "Hi, we found images depicting minors in sexual situations on your blog. Please enjoy a few days' reprieve to move your work elsewhere and back it up before we take it down." Ditto with leaving a picture up while LJ tries to...what? Figure out whether the artist was thinking of Harry as over or under the age of majority at the time of the drawing?
And like I've said, yeah, it's bad customer service, they could do better. My point here is that I think this happens because they are confused, not because they are attempting to extinguish fandom, cause a fandom holocaust, chase fandom off of LJ, or any of the other (IMO) overreactions I've read lately.
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.
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-whatever-you-want mentality. If you do, I'd go there in a heartbeat.
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 private
I 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:
LJ opens itself up to huge liability if it says, basically, "Hi, we found images depicting minors in sexual situations on your blog. Please enjoy a few days' reprieve to move your work elsewhere and back it up before we take it down." Ditto with leaving a picture up while LJ tries to...what? Figure out whether the artist was thinking of Harry as over or under the age of majority at the time of the drawing?
And like I've said, yeah, it's bad customer service, they could do better. My point here is that I think this happens because they are confused, not because they are attempting to extinguish fandom, cause a fandom holocaust, chase fandom off of LJ, or any of the other (IMO) overreactions I've read lately.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment