I'm no Fey: ;)
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 ( Read more... )
"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 ( Read more... )
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.
I don't think it works reliably enough to be a useful technique. However, I think it falls into the category of tactics that should not be used for ethical reasons even if they did work. As I said, we are supposed to be better than the groups that do that kind of thing. The basic problem is that of drawing powerful attention from outside the community in order to gain an advantage in internal disputes. Dragging in outsiders has been a taboo on the Net since long before the Web was around, and there are good reasons it is.
Reply
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.
Dragging in outsiders has been a taboo on the Net since long before the Web was around, and there are good reasons it is.
Bringing advertisers into a blogging website is by definition bringing outsiders, no?
Reply
++1 ;-)
(why do all the interesting real time discussions happen when I'm swamped at work? LAter to both of you...)
Reply
Okay, in that case I agree. But because of that, because the results are out of the complainant's hands, people should think twice before choosing to become complainants.
I have no idea what motivated this letter.
Neither do I. Part of the problem is that it doesn't matter what motivated the letter; the effects are independent of that. Thus (although I know you weren't making this claim) there would be no truth in a claim someone could make that it's okay for good people to use this tactic even if it's bad when bad people use it. It doesn't matter for what reasons it's used, the effects are equally dangerous either way.
Bringing advertisers into a blogging website is by definition bringing outsiders, no?
I meant bringing them into internal disputes in particular, and I thought that was clear from the sentence immediately before the one you quoted, but I'm not fond of advertising in general either.
Reply
As they should be, imo. When I filed my complaint at the BBB and clicked on the equivalent of a 'sent' button, my part was done. It was up to other people to decide whether it was valid or not and then it is up to LJ to decide what type of decision, if any, they should take as a result of it. I'm happy things work that way. I think that's how they should work.
people should think twice before choosing to become complainants.
That, I absolutely agree with.
I meant bringing them into internal disputes in particular
The problem here is that LJ's lack of communication or poor communication on this issue gave users little leverage. I think it was perfectly logical to seek help so to speak elsewhere. When productive dialog seems impossible, what should users do?
I chose to ask for help at the BBB, jackandahat chose to seek help at Pepsi. We both brought outsiders into an internal dispute and both actions were risky. Yes, Pepsi could have a closer look and complain about other content they deem objectionable on LJ and pressure 6A into making sure said content is removed. That's a risk. I won't deny this. However complaining to the BBB could also have unwanted results. Seeing their stubborn unwillingness to admit that sponsored content was advertising, I thought LJ would never backpedal on this and simply asked they update their documentation to avoid falsely advertising Paid accounts as advertising-free accounts (under the conditions specified in the relevant FAQ). What if LJ decides to make ads visible to all users as a result of this? What if LJ decides to introduce ads on Basic accounts to compensate for the loss of making paid and perm users not see ads? What if LJ decides to develop sponsored features only available to Plus users?
Reply
Leave a comment