Announcing LJ United.
I wanted to let the LJ Speaks community know about the creation of ljunited-- a coalition of LiveJournal users dedicated to putting forth a slate of two qualified candidates for the upcoming LJ advisory elections, drawn from individuals who believe in basic principles for LiveJournal that are very much appreciated by and in line with the beliefs of the LJ
( Read more... )
A failure to see that would be sad, because one can only motivate a person or group of persons in terms of their preference structure, one is better able to do this to the extent that one recognizes that preference structure, and the boycott showed at least some recognition and acknowledgment of the preference structure of СУП. It was pretty obvious to me though that the boycott wasn't going to accomplish its goals…
Indeed. It was too little and too late. and, now, you propose to do what is - given the declared objectives and given the preference structure of СУП - even less! If the management continues to ignore the advice given to it, I think it's important to have LJ's appointed boardmembers be willing to walk away from the table, in order to show the users that they aren't going to legitimize such actions.
I underscore the word continue, because at best said advisors would only be positioned to walk away from the table in objection to things getting worse; but things are already unacceptably bad.
Now, when Basic accounts were eliminated, at least two advisors wrote in objection and… what happened? Are the Basic accounts back? Was their anything other than an empty apology? What you seem to be arguing is that its better to either leave or do nothing
No, of course that's not even what I seem to be arguing, in-so-far as the closest thing to a do-nothing approach here is yours.
The time to walk away from the table has passed, and staying at the table to try to appoint proxies who will be two people walking away from the table when things get even worse simply adds ostensible legitimacy to the present order.
Walking away from the table might mean deleting your journal, or it might mean leaving it perfectly inactive until reform; or it might mean just a series of longer and longer boycotts, with active journaling here in-between those boycotts. to do something which *may* help somewhat
You've hedged that so thoroughly that it's empty. The problem is that it's doing something that cannot help more that trivially.
(Well, I suppose that it might get the American appointee out of his mother's basement. But that won't do much for anyone else.)
Reply
I think that's shortsighted, if only because I have, in the past, SUCCESSFULLY argued for LiveJournal to change its decisions to be more empowering and less corporate.
But you know what it takes, a lot of the time? It takes a strong coalition that they'll at least listen to, and a STRONG argument that they will be more profitable and more successful by changing their policies.
It's not that I want or immediately expect LJ/SUP to keep their promises because it would be a big rights giveaway for the customers. Rather, it's because they've closed their eyes to how, by doing so, they will strongly help their business. They, in standard dotcom fashion, have reached for the banner ads as the end-all, be-all of how a site should be funded, because that is what they know best... even though it's hurting the site, killing growth, and is less profitable in the long term.
We need to make that argument in a more convincing manner, not just to them, but to the entire advisory board.
Reply
The magic hedge-phrase here seems to be by itself. I suppose that refusing to do business with any objection firm could be said not to accomplish anything by itself. someone with no talent or principles attend the advisory board meetings
In reality, no one with both would legitimize the present state by sitting there. Best not to have someone with principles but no grasp or - as now seems most likely - someone with talent but no princples (beyond self-promotion through posturing). I have, in the past, SUCCESSFULLY argued for LiveJournal to change its decisions to be more empowering and less corporate.
Now you're not talking about walking away qua Advisor, but about some other mode of persuasion, but not sharing just what that mode would be in the particular case of the present issues. Your past successes didn't keep LiveJournal from going to where it is now, and the significant successes came when LiveJournal was owned by a different firm with a very different vision. It takes a strong coalition that they'll at least listen to
A coalition that will not significantly reduce content-provision is an intrinsically weak coalition. That is the bottom line.
Reply
Frankly, walking away from the site won't fix that. The *BEST* we can hope for is that we can put the pressure of public opinion on the site, and make arguments that could both be more profitable for the company in question, and empowering to the users.
And if that doesn't work?
Then it doesn't matter either way, does it?!
You basically are urging LJers to give up what they care about without a fight and without strong arguments to change course -- which, frankly, haven't been made effectively as yet -- but you do not offer any preferable solutions to these very difficult problems.
Maybe *WE* can challenge the management. "Let us know what your goals are as far as income and growth... and let us see whether we can make them succeed."
Ultimately, their back is up against the wall too. We fail or succeed... together. I feel convinced that we can make a strong argument for the entire advisory board that the site *IS* failing. The other half, however, is less certain, but worth the risk.
Reply
Uh huh. Which says something about the obstenance of the administration. Frankly, walking away from the site won't fix that.
Frankly, that's probably the only thing that could fix it. And if that's not the only thing that will fix the decline in numbers, then the other thing will be a transformation of LiveJournal into something with a very different ethos from that which prevailed before Six Apart.
The most blatant fallacy in your argument comes in implicitly equating inactivity now with inactivity for all time. Obviously, though, one could believe that inactivity now could induce policy changes that resulted in increased activity later.
And if LiveJournal became a success but ended-up no longer serving its present or past members, that shouldn't be seen as a success for those present and past members. The *BEST* we can hope for is that we can put the pressure of public opinion on the site
That isn't even worth hoping for. So long as СУП gets its content, it has little reason to care about public opinion. And if that doesn't work?
Then it doesn't matter either way, does it?!
No, it very much matters because if would-be boycotters &c are correct, then the-sooner-the-better, while there's less bad policy to unwind, and before the underlying trend has more time to play itself out. You basically are urging LJers to give up what they care about without a fight
No, I suggest that they either actually fight or that they truly leave for good, whereas you misrepresent a form of acquiescence as fighting. without strong arguments to change course
No, the strong arguments have already been made, which is which you backpedal and write which, frankly, haven't been made effectively as yet
which takes us to the question of what would be effective. People have written clearly, so what remains is compelling СУП to attend to the argument. That brings us back to your call for a strong coalition, and to the bottom line that a coalition that cannot or will not significantly reduce content-provision is an intrinsically ineffective coalition. Maybe *WE* can challenge the management. Let us know what your goals are as far as income and growth… and let us see whether we can make them succeed.
Not only does the refusal to reduce content not compel them to listen, if they (for mysterious reason) did listen then it would prove that the speaker didn't get the fundamental of the business here. No reason for them to keep listening, then. their back is up against the wall too.
They don't see it that way. The stats that you've seen are not news to them, but they have a plan for transforming LiveJournal into an entity both very different both from that which it was and from that which it has so far become. They endure the members who long for some like the old order because their numbers attract present advertisers and because their content attracts some of the members in whom they see their long-term future.
(Nor should one confuse the Advisory Board with a Board of Directors. The Advisory Board can ask that the business plan be laid-out in detail before them, but they won't really get it.)
The way that СУП would see its back as against the wall would be if it were confronted with a precipitous decline in content.
Reply
One of the good reasons I could give for this happening is her... Annalies Van Den Belt, former head of the internet side of ITV, one of Britain's largest broadcasters, now general manager of SUP.
From a personal standpoint, I might have a bit of pull when it comes to lobbying people such as Ms. Van Den Belt. Why? Because, I have online friends who are involved in the highest levels of the British media, such as a former senior reporter for ITV, and the head of BBC's news. I feel that I could do a good job of convincing her and the rest of the board that the site is shrinking, and that they personally aren't particularly aware of the extent of the promises that were made to LiveJournal's members, or of the underlying culture of the site.
In short, I don't think it's an impossible argument to make, because what we're ultimately talking about here is how to make both profits, customer loyalty, and growth, and I don't see them being mutually exclusive at all.
And if that fails, if those arguments are definitely ignored, *THEN* I could see the definite need for walking away from the table, for boycotts, for denying content... indeed, for every thing that could be done to force them to listen to us.
But to do that and have a chance at being effective, we will need unprecedented unity.
Reply
No, while you and I might disagree about what is possible, what it comes down to is that, whatever might be possible, you propose to use means that won't work. From a personal standpoint, I might have a bit of pull when it comes to lobbying people such as Ms. Van Den Belt. Why? Because, I have online friends who are involved in the highest levels of the British media, such as a former senior reporter for ITV, and the head of BBC's news. I feel that I could do a good job of convincing her and the rest of the board that the site is shrinking, and that they personally aren't particularly aware of the extent of the promises that were made to LiveJournal's members, or of the underlying culture of the site.
So, really, the idea is that you should be the Advisor, because of nepotistic connections. I'm glad that we have that much out in the open now, since you've been trying to be drafted instead of just openly announcing your desire. I feel that I could do a good job of convincing her and the rest of the board that the site is shrinking
Again: They already know the stats. they personally aren't particularly aware of the extent of the promises that were made to LiveJournal's members, or of the underlying culture of the site.
In essence, that is just talking about one more petition. For the past several months, most would-be activists have effected their attempts at reformed based on the hope that someone at СУП just needs to be told. The appeal of petitions - and of a candidate who offers to petition - is that they don't really require much from their supporters.
СУП knows, at the highest level, that many members are unhappy. СУП doesn't see its future in those members. СУП knows that promises were made; it doesn't think that it has to keep them; and, by staying at the table to petition them, you prove them right. They continue to get their content as they transform their product and seek a different customer base. And if that fails, if those arguments are definitely ignored, *THEN* I could see the definite need for walking away from the table, for boycotts, for denying content… indeed, for every thing that could be done to force them to listen to us.
Again, with the passage of time, boycotts would have to accomplish even more; with the passage of time, there is more policy effected that will have to be unwound, the pointy-haired guys become more psychologically committed to those policies, and more people leave LiveJournal not merely in boycott but with no willingness to return.
Reply
Actually, no. I do not plan on being drafted, and have been working hard to try to find possible candidates who are willing to sign up to our policies. If you want, you can talk to avva, who can confirm this fact for you, making it clear that I've been encouraging talented people other than me to run ever since this was announced.
And, btw, do you know the definition of nepotism... or are you just being an anonymous troll?!
That said, I do intend to play a role as far as putting what connections and clout I have at the disposal of the community. I have some connections with a few people on the board as well, so trying to lobby the other people who can influence such decisions is of importance to me.
Reply
Certainly one could recruit other candidates while covertly seeking a nomination for oneself, so just what is it that I'm supposed to read from avva? (I believe in his personal integrity, but I have little sense of whether he's a good judge of character.)
I believe that you mean to ask whether I not know the definition of nepotism; otherwise you would be attempting to contrast trolling with trolling. In any case, I advisedly referred to nepotistic connections rather than to simple nepotism. The adjectival suffix -ic refers not only to things that are characterized by the underlying noun, but related to it. There is of course a cluster of related sorts of connections that includes cronyism, nepotism, &c.
Reply
No, they are entirely apropos. I created LJ United to be what it sounds like: a united group of LJers, working together. And if I thought that I could help reverse the course of LJ's policies, you're damn right I would use contacts to try and influence the decision of those policies.
Hence my use of the word "lobby", which is essentially what I am doing. I'm advocating a position. As opposed to nepotism, which is, to say, favoritism or patronage to relatives. Not to say that this *hasn't* happened with LiveJournal in the past, considering how many of Brad's familymembers were once involved in running the business. (And yes, I disapproved of that, too.)
And yes, "nepotistic" also refers to the same thing. Now, if you're talking "cronyism", well, cronyism is partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications. So that doesn't really fit much either.
Rather, all I could reasonably expect from my friends in journalism is for them to basically tell SUP's General Manager who I am and why they might want to talk to me. They could vouge for what I've said and done in the past, and maybe get me a foot in the door, not for any kind of appointment, but really, just to talk to their GM from a relative position of openness and understanding.
But hey, if you think that people on our side of the issue don't even deserve that choice...
Instead, you say either threaten her company, or leave.
Now, I'm not denying the validity of either approach, but I tend to believe that there's a good chance that this person is new and influential at SUP, and, if properly approached *MAY* be able to reach a compromise with us that could help to restore trust, restore rights, and increase the success of the business.
I believe in both carrot *AND* stick. You believe in either leaving or threatening... and the last company who found LJ problematic to deal with from a user standpoint sold us off... and I don't see how it would benefit LJ to go through that again, because it's literally like Russian Roulette... and meanwhile, we're *still* bleeding to death from a slow gut wound.
Reply
Mind you that I can just recompose what was my original comment, save it to my own filespace, and then systematically re-reply everytime that I discover that you've deleted it. Thus, more people will read it and upon each deletion discover your dishonesty.
Reply
Reply
No, when you started deleting, it was because you're used to maintaining a filtered pathology cluster in your own journals, and you didn't think about the possibility that I'd only have to recompose at most once, so that (subsequently) effective undeletion wouldn't mean anything much more than a Ctrl-V.
Now you're deleting because you need to rationalize the original deletion to the audience.
[And he's deleted his own comment: Fine. You recompose, and I'll recompost! Works for me…
To which my reply was: As I said, earlier, I just saved it to my filespace, so I'm simply copying and pasting.
Reply
Leave a comment