The Only Living Boy in New York ([info]nightstalker) wrote,
@ 2007-05-31 01:15:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
LJ screws the pooch
Nice going, Six Apart. You've ruined the trust that it took LJ a decade to build. You've made my decision about purchasing a permanent account much much easier. As of now, I'm not even sure if I'll ever renew my paid account. Depending on the admin's response, I may not even stay with this journal.

It's funny, over the weekend at Balticon, I was talking about how I expected this site to last for decades, perhaps throughout our lifetimes - the only thing that could really prevent that would be some sort of massive stupidity by the owners.

I return home to discover that the management did exactly that.

Even if this is resolved amicably and properly, it'll be a long time before most users are convinced that 6A will never pull shit like this again.

The fact that they did it suddenly and without warning is bad enough. The fact that they didn't even post an explaination when they did it is even worse. And the fact that there's a huge outcry and they still haven't responded takes the cake.

But even after that, it gets worse. First, the abuse team (who's only following orders, after all) responds with a form letter telling those persecuted and banned unfairly that they're just doing it on the advice of their lawyers - because if someone lists an interest in something illegal, their lawyer thinks that there's a remote possibility that they could somehow be held responsible.
Of course, you can say that this lawyer is acting in the best interests of the company. But the interests of the company are the interests of it's paying customers - these are lawyers they should be retaining to help protect the rights of both the company and it's customers if, in some extreme circumstance, there is some sort of absurd lawsuit to that effect.

Except for the insane hypocrisy embodied in such an act. Just months ago, LJ refused to take action even when people would post their intention to commit heinous crimes. And they were entirely correct to do so - as their response then said, It is not illegal to discuss illegal actions. Yet now, people who aren't even thinking about doing anything illegal - such as a discussion group for Nabakov's Lolita - are being unilaterally punished.

But then, while still remaining mum in the face of mounting customer outrage, the CEO of Six Apart went and spoke with CNET as they wrote an article on the exploding controversy. His words were the diametric opposite of reassuring - in fact, they were the absolutely last thing everyone outraged over this fiasco would want to hear.

"Our decision here was not based on pure legal issues," countered Six Apart's Berkowitz. "It was based on what community we want to build and what we think is appropriate within that community and what's not."

Essentially, a man brought from the outside to run an unrelated company that purchased another company that we have been active members of, is now telling us that his personal moral opinions trump the interests and desires of the customers who's very patronage made LiveJournal the massive, popular site it is today - people without whom LJ would never have been important enough to be worth buying; without whom Six Apart would never have been important enough to need to bring in an outside CEO like this man.

Putting aside for a moment the moral obligation of LJ to honor their unspoken contract with their users to preserve the innermost thoughts and feelings that these users have spent countless hours of their precious limited lives entrusting to the care of their servers, a company has the right to decide what they want and don't want to have on their servers.
A company who feels this way, who wants to limit what I have to say in my personal diary to conform to their parent company's CEO's new personal morality, is not a company I wish to support or patronize. Judging from the thousands of angry comment in LJ's latest news post, and all over the site, I'm far from the only one.

It's also worth pointing out the sidebar in the CNet article where they mention that "Legal experts say LiveJournal is clearly not liable for fictional stories and related discussions posted by its users."

When 6A brought out LJ, I pooh-poohed the doomsayers who warned that this would be the death of LJ, that a seperate company would have no idea how to run it properly. After all, 6A was a blogging company, a close cousin of diary sites like this one. When they started offering ads, I dismissed the idea that it would affect LJ - after all, they survived without ads, and if some advertiser didn't like something that some random subset of users was interested in, a young, responsive, intelligent company like LJ or 6A would tell them exactly where to stick it.
But then they went, and got themselves this new CEO - and now it turns out I was wrong, and the doomsayers were entirely right.

What's next? From the sounds of it, anything illegal or even "immoral" is fair game. If I list "medical marijuana" or "gay marriage" or post a poem including the HD-DVD or DeCSS encryption key, will my account that I've spent a decent amount of money on, and countless hours upon hours of my time and energy on, suddenly disappear on the whim of some corporate desk jockey? Will this record of my life, and my friends lives, and our interactions and hopes and dreams, just vanish into the digital ether as if our lives have never even existed, just at the random whim of some faceless lawyer in a legal department?



(14 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]lovedstrangely
2007-05-31 07:13 am UTC (link)
I'm with you on this. I don't promote rape or pedophilia but a mass deletion of journals with anything that smacks of interest in those two ( to the extent that fandom and survivor journals are affected) bothers me. It really bothers me. Who's to say what is 'questionable'? and with such a mass deletion program in place (because really, this had to be done with some sort of automated program of the sort that you type in a word and it finds all journals listing said word as an interest) how easily can it go(just like you said) from "rape", "incest" or "pedophilia" to "gay marriage", "drug use" and "bdsm"?

the whole thing bothers me immensely.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]his_for_life
2007-05-31 11:12 am UTC (link)
I think there are certain things that are understandable, especially if a person has "pedophilia" as one of their interests, because that's just sick, but to delete journals because of interests like "gay marriage" or "drug use" blows my mind.

Whose to say that journals such as "drug use" aren't communities to stress not to use drugs? Do they even read the content before they delete these?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]lovedstrangely
2007-05-31 07:08 pm UTC (link)
even if it were a community that promoted the (adult, consenting and INFORMED) use of drugs, it shouldn't just be blatantly deleted because someone else disagrees with content.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]his_for_life
2007-05-31 07:33 pm UTC (link)
I can agree for drug use, but then again, I think it depends on each situation. If a person uses drugs and is mentioning it in a community, I don't find that a big deal. It it were a community about how to sell and distribute drugs, then that I can understand if they delete that. Same thing with a community involving pedophilia, or anything else extreme like that. Shit like that shouldn't even be allowed on the internet.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]his_for_life
2007-05-31 11:10 am UTC (link)
Whoa, what?

I can't really stand Livejournal that much, anyway, but do you mind if I ask what exactly you did or said that caused them to give you a warning like that? Maybe I passed over it but it's 4am and I don't have an attention span right now.

I can understand if a person is writing that they intend on doing some sort of criminal act, but your situation seems nothing like that.

(Reply to this)


[info]chainkill
2007-05-31 11:24 am UTC (link)
medical marajuana and gay marriage are each legal in some states. They are not both legal in any one state, but still.

About ten years ago, my dad used to run a genealogy forum for a major online service. One of their primary chatrooms, in which to meet other genealogists and talk, was called "ancestry". Then one day, the major online service blocked anyone from getting to any chatroom which contained the word-part "ncest". This was a disaster for about a week, and my dad's office was flooded with complaints because some desk monkey in Virginia decided what was and wasn't acceptable.

(Don't get me wrong, in most situations, incest is morally reprehensible (yes, there are situations in which I consider it morally gray instead of reprehensible), but their mode of attack was horribly wrong.)

I agree with you.

(Reply to this)


[info]antiquated_tory
2007-05-31 01:13 pm UTC (link)
I see also that Brad was on holiday while this was going on.

Actually this is an extension by the CEO of things I see all the time done in my company, now that we are big enough to be corporate scum. It is not that whatshisname25 is especially evil, or a banner holder for the Christian Right, or whatever. It's that he's a suit and this is the kind of thing suits do. This particular variation on the process goes like this:

1. Suit gets what, on the face of it, is not an unreasonable idea, unless you actually understand the mechanics of how the company/process/service works. This may be 'hey, these complaint groups have a point, we have a bunch of journals used by pedophiles and other illegal/undesirables to pursue their despicable ends. Let's run an expert shell program to find them all and suspend them!" Or it might be something as trivial as "None of the sales guys know what 'filter' means and it looks like a search function to me, so let's rename it 'search.'"

2. Experienced Technical Guy explains to Suit why this is a bad idea, either on principle, because of technical difficulties in implementation, or both. Suit doesn't see what the big deal is but doesn't want to out and out overrule Experienced Technical Guy and argument is getting nowhere, so Suit bides his time for now.

3. Experienced Technical Guy goes on long holiday. Suit implements his cherished idea now that there is no one around to argue about it.

4. Suit's cherished idea turns out to be more or less as idiotic as Experienced Technical Guy warned him it would be. This may be as drastic as "LJ losing the trust of its users that they could post whatever content they wanted that complied with LJ policy, without LJ deciding to impose some draconian lawyer's version of bourgeoise American morality on them," or it may be as minor as "UI now has 3 separate functions called 'Search' accessible on the same page. One of them is not a search function at all, but a filter applied to search results. Users are confused; overruled tech guys are pissed off when they come back from holiday."

5. Suit, who's not really a bad guy, apologizes (while sticking Experienced Technical Guy with the cleanup). Then six months later he does it again.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]invaderbuzzy
2007-05-31 01:39 pm UTC (link)
I work for a very small school and that is generally the case...though instead of calling them "suits", I think they should be called "Dresses" because they're all women. XP I'm the technical guy, and I'm usually stuck with 5.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]antiquated_tory
2007-05-31 03:44 pm UTC (link)
...women in management don't wear 'power' dress suits where you come from?...

:)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]invaderbuzzy
2007-05-31 03:46 pm UTC (link)
Nah, they're pretty old, so dressing like that would just be wrong...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]tribblewing
2007-05-31 02:53 pm UTC (link)
I poo-pooed the doomsayers
I poo-pooed the idea

Why do you keep using that *word*? It's "pooh-pooh".

Anyway, we already argued over the LJ purge. But maybe I'll post my thoughts later.

(Reply to this)


[info]seraphimstar
2007-05-31 03:40 pm UTC (link)
So that's what that is about? I remember just seeing something on the opening page about 500 accounts being deleted wrongfully, but I just skipped past it and went right to my f-page, as always. I'll have to go back and read more about it...

(Reply to this)


[info]arikatt
2007-05-31 07:46 pm UTC (link)
http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html

(Reply to this)


[info]dimloep_suum
2007-06-01 03:52 am UTC (link)
Maybe I'm just jaded...strike (erm, no pun intended?) that. I am a bit jaded. I've become accustomed to the higher-ups breaking their promises, from the managemnt company at my hotel all the way up to the White House. CEOs doing stupid shit like this just doesn't faze me anymore.

And if I *were* careless enough to list genuinely illegal (not just "immoral," for a fuckin' insane value of "immoral") activities as interests in my profile, where potential employers and such could easily see them, as well as law enforcement agencies and related agencies, well...wouldn't I have something coming to me?

I also have to echo [info]chainkill's first point, and I don't think yours is the strongest hypothetical. One has "rape" (gods, I hate even typing the word...) listed as an interest, there's a very remote, and I stress remote, possibility of one actually committing said act. One has "gay marriage" listed as an interest? I dare hir to just go out and try to commit that.

And these people are up in arms because their accounts were temporarily suspended. Not deleted outright. Supended. A slap on the wrist for the actuall offenders and a few fewer days of posting...whatever, for everyone else.

Freedom of Speech is guaranteed in the Constituition; Right to LiveJournal, though implied, is not. Take my journal away? My money and I will go somewhere else. It is the Internet, after all.


Gods, I sound like a bitch...

(Reply to this)


(14 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…