Okay: for starters, what points do we want in the email?
I'm thinking:
Who we are: Although fandom is frequently stereotyped negatively, we're in fact an active and vibrant portion of the LJ user base--and we create content with a broad off-LJ audience (during the blackout, "HP fanfic" spiked to the top of the Google search term list).
Why this should matter to 6A: LJ is fairly unique in that it combines both of the generally accepted "web 2.0" models of user-generated content and social networking--right now, 6A seems to want to turn Vox into Typepad or Blogger and LJ into MySpace or Facebook, imitating models that have proven themselve successful. There are several major problems with this approach: one, why would 6A want to compete with the companies that have already entrenched themselves in those niches?; two, LJ's preexisting user base makes changing models a difficult fight against inertia and its own customers; three, the fact that LJ's hybrid of the two has been successful to date proves that that hybridization has its own unique strengths and its own unique market. Fandom is a good match for LJ and LJ a good match for fandom because its gift economy, and the other ways in which the community encourages content which encourages community, prove that hybridization can lead to valuable synergy.
Why we're doing this: Although we appreciate LJ's apology, and the direct citing of fandom in it, we're still concerned by the fact that Strikethrough happened in the first place. In addition, we're worried by the slow response of LJ to its community, and the seeming inconsistencies between LJ's initial statements to the press and its later statements to its user base.
What we want: specific guidelines as to acceptable and unacceptable journal content, specific guidelines as to when journal content that's unacceptable in public entries becomes acceptable in locked entries. some kind of REAL assurance that the contract between LJ and its users implicit within the TOS will be honored, rather than changed randomly on us. Emphasize that these concerns are NOT solely fandom's province, but because we were affected heavily by Strikethrough, and because we're a fairly large user bloc, we're trying to make changes in corporate-user relations which will benefit ALL users.
I like your list - I genuinely think we (and other fans, and fandom in general) can help LJ craft improvements that will really work, and assist in getting the word out and the changes adopted. But as you say, we're only one group of users.
Might we consider not spending time on the mention of negative stereotypes? I'm sure they already know them. So stressing the positives about fans, which they might *not* hear as often, would perhaps be sufficient.
Might I just add to what we want: a clear procedure for appealing suspension decisions. That users were told they had absolutely no recourse is unacceptable.
I'm thinking:
Who we are: Although fandom is frequently stereotyped negatively, we're in fact an active and vibrant portion of the LJ user base--and we create content with a broad off-LJ audience (during the blackout, "HP fanfic" spiked to the top of the Google search term list).
Why this should matter to 6A: LJ is fairly unique in that it combines both of the generally accepted "web 2.0" models of user-generated content and social networking--right now, 6A seems to want to turn Vox into Typepad or Blogger and LJ into MySpace or Facebook, imitating models that have proven themselve successful. There are several major problems with this approach: one, why would 6A want to compete with the companies that have already entrenched themselves in those niches?; two, LJ's preexisting user base makes changing models a difficult fight against inertia and its own customers; three, the fact that LJ's hybrid of the two has been successful to date proves that that hybridization has its own unique strengths and its own unique market.
Fandom is a good match for LJ and LJ a good match for fandom because its gift economy, and the other ways in which the community encourages content which encourages community, prove that hybridization can lead to valuable synergy.
Why we're doing this: Although we appreciate LJ's apology, and the direct citing of fandom in it, we're still concerned by the fact that Strikethrough happened in the first place. In addition, we're worried by the slow response of LJ to its community, and the seeming inconsistencies between LJ's initial statements to the press and its later statements to its user base.
What we want: specific guidelines as to acceptable and unacceptable journal content, specific guidelines as to when journal content that's unacceptable in public entries becomes acceptable in locked entries. some kind of REAL assurance that the contract between LJ and its users implicit within the TOS will be honored, rather than changed randomly on us. Emphasize that these concerns are NOT solely fandom's province, but because we were affected heavily by Strikethrough, and because we're a fairly large user bloc, we're trying to make changes in corporate-user relations which will benefit ALL users.
Reply
Might we consider not spending time on the mention of negative stereotypes? I'm sure they already know them. So stressing the positives about fans, which they might *not* hear as often, would perhaps be sufficient.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment