I'm no Fey: ;)

[ex_uniquewo]

Plus, I'm lazy and it's pretty late here so I'm just gonna quote news, 'k?

"We've also added an opt-out setting for virtual gifts. Paid members can choose to disable receiving all virtual gifts, or just of sponsored v-gifts. That setting is also found on the Viewing Options page

Comments

[mskala]

I hope that "Did you know your ads are running on a site that hosts objectionable content?" routine won't become a common tactic among people who dislike ads on Livejournal. Actually, I hope it'll be solidly condemned and never repeated. It's exactly the same tactic that WFI was using against the fanfic people, it's extremely damaging to the community, and I'd like to think that we who dislike ads are better than WFI.

[ex_uniquewo]

Personally, I filed a complain at the BBB because I think LJ is not respecting their own TOS, not out of misguided revenge. I'd like to believe that my complaint would not have been validated if it wasn't valid.

[ex_uniquewo]

sometimes they're misguided revenge (demanding Pepsi remove their ads because LJ has "questionable content"

I don't know if you're referring to the post I linked to but "demanding Pepsi remove their ads" is not the impression I've gotten from jackandahat's letter. Moreover, I don't know what jackandahat's motives were. He didn't say AFAIK so 'misguided revenge'? Maybe. Maybe not.

[ex_uniquewo]

I think you can take what jackandahat wrote to Pepsi and compare it with what WFI said they wrote to LJ and find a lot of similarities, and I don't like it.

I agree too. But I don't think one can tell they did it out of misguided revenge because, as far as I'm concerned, one cannot presume one's intentions. I also believe there was no demanding involved. I can't remember how WFI phrased exactly but it seems to me their tone was a bit different. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[matgb]

His initial posts on the subject were in a community (or asylum?), I found them through a Technorati search.

He is an LJ refugee, he's commented on the_lj_herald recently (in response to my linking them to him).

[ex_uniquewo]

Speculation on one person's motive is not the same thing as stating as known one person's motive. Imo, I've seen pretty assertive sentences. That bothered me a little and I found it important to mention that we don't *know* why he wrote that letter.

[matgb]

I think you're right, they are comparable in content (but not really style). But I don't think that invalidates what jackandahat has done; WFI used a perfectly legitimate consumer campaigning technique in an extreme and dodgy way, that doesn't invalidate the technique itself.

I've made sponsors aware of dodgy activities they might be endorsing in the past, it's then up to them to decide whether they want to continue the
sponsorship or not. I prefer a non-hectoring approach, (especially compared to WFI) but I believe in markets and the power of consumer pressure, ergo applying pressure is something I won't object to per se.

It's how the corporates respond that matters, in this case we still haven't a clue what caused the withdrawal.

[ex_uniquewo]

WFI used a perfectly legitimate consumer campaigning technique in an extreme and dodgy way, that doesn't invalidate the technique itself.
applying pressure is something I won't object to per se

+1

[mskala]

I think one reason I find both WFI's and jackandahat's tactics objectionable is that they're equating the content posted by Livejournal's users with the content of Livejournal itself. Writing to a magazine's advertisers to say "Did you know your ads are running in a magazine that prints these objectionable articles?" is different from writing to LJ's advertisers to say "Did you know your ads are running on a Web site that posts this objectionable content?" because Livejournal doesn't exercise editorial control in the same way a magazine does, and it shouldn'tYou can reasonably hold the print magazine responsible for everything in it because they exercise editorial control. If you start trying to hold Livejournal directly responsible for everything users do, then they'll start exercising a lot more editorial control than they do now. Basic corporate behaviour: they won't put themselves in a position to be punished for other people's actions they can't control. A major increase in Livejournal's editorial control is the result WFI

[ex_uniquewo]

OTOH, I don't think I would do such a thing. OTOH, objectively, the content is there and the advertisers are advertising on a site that hosts that content. It's then up to advertisers to decide whether the content is indeed objectionable or not, whether advertising on this site could be interpreted as the fact that they condone this content or not and finally decide to remove their ads from this site or not. Then it's up to LJ to decide if they need to react to the advertiser's decision - if there was one - and how - if they think they need to. What I want to say is that using this tactic only has the effects one decides they want it to have. In itself, it doesn't necessarily have any damaging consequences.

[mskala]

"using this tactic only has the effects one decides they want it to have."

On the contrary - part of the reason I think it's so dangerous is that the person who uses it has absolutely no control over what effect it will have. It might have the desired effect; it might have some other effect entirely; and you don't get to choose. Use it against advertisers (like JackAndHat) and it's quite possible that it'll touch off witch hunts against the user community instead. Use it against a yucky segment of the user community (which is the most charitable-to-WFI interpretation of what WFI was doing), and it's quite possible that it'll hit many other innocent segments instead. Trying to provoke advertisers to put pressure on 6A creates a significant risk of users being caught in the crossfire. You can start this kind of thing but you can't stop it once it's in motion, and that makes it a very dangerous thing to start

[ex_uniquewo]

On the contrary - part of the reason I think it's so dangerous is that the person who uses it has absolutely no control over what effect it will have.

When I said "they" I meant advertisers and LJ. People who use said tactic should not have any control over what effect it will have because the final decision is not theirs (and it shouldn't be). That was my point.

Use it against advertisers (like JackAndHat) and it's quite possible that it'll touch off witch hunts against the user community instead.

First, I don't know if that move was against advertisers in general, Pepsi in particular or sponsored content as it was advertised on LJ. I have no idea what motivated this letter.
Secondly, again, if there was a be a witch hunt that would be LiveJournal decision. Putting the blame on the person who used said tactic is not something I would do. LJ could have ignored WFI's complaints till they were proved to be legally founded. They did not. I couldn't care less about WFI. I care much more about the way LJ reacted to their actions.