Log in

No account? Create an account
21 March 2008 @ 10:43 am
Censor deez.  
Regarding the boycott, strike, whatever the hell you want to call it, I'm not participating, obviously. However, I did take a small step in regards to the reported censorship of the Interests search feature, where "adult content" interests are apparently no longer searchable.

To my interests, I have added three items:

  • Sex

  • Bondage

  • Anything people censor

This represents the entirety of my protest placard. Thank you.
Current Mood: rousing of rabble
bronxelf_ag001 on March 21st, 2008 04:45 pm (UTC)
this is a straight c/p from a comment I made about this this morning:

I mentioned in a friend's lj yesterday that what this seems to come down to is the fallacy that quantity, by virtue of itself, creates greater quality.

The logic, if you can call it that, is that there are far more free users than paid, so most of the content is created by those users. They believe that content is like coin- a fair trade for the very thing that keeps LJ functioning, and by removing the ad-free basic service, they are not being traded with fairly for their "coin" (that being their content.)

The flaws in this logic are large enough to drive a train through, but let's go with the most obvious ones-

On it's face, it would seem that there might be something to this, strictly based on odds. It's sort of like shooting darts in the dark- if you shoot 500 darts, it is more likely that 3 will hit the target than if you only shoot 5. However this makes the utterly ridiculous assumption that all content is inherently created equal, and further, (and here's where it *really* goes off the rails) that the people posting the best content *are also basic account holders*. Though "good" is clearly a subjective call in terms of content, those who have a very serious investment in their content and continue to regularly produce it (as opposed to the vast majority of LJ users, who are *not* using LJ as a blog the way we do at wordpress or blogger) are *not* using basic accounts, but are heavily skewed in favor of paid or permanent accounts.

They also are under the delusion that their "content" by virtue of their simply being more of it, makes them inherently more valuable because of the viral nature of the net. This MIGHT have been true ten years ago. It is absolutely not true now, and probably hasn't been true since LJ did away with invite codes (I needed an invite code to get my lj too.)

They believe that they are *owed* the basic/ad free account because they've been supporting LJ with their very presence and content all these years. Well the complete arrogance of that aside, I would remind them that currency fluctuates. The volume of content/presence by basic users is no longer *WORTH* what it once was, just like the dollar is worth less against the pound today than it was yesterday (I assume-I haven't checked this morning.) I look at it more like a pay as you go thing- you paid with content, and you got ad-free basic. The irony is these same people *STILL* have ad-free basic (though I wouldn't blame SUP for one moment if they removed that too after all this)- They just can't get another account at that level.

The reason why *THIS* outcry has become so divisive is because for the first time it is pitting one section of the userbase against another, and the one doing the complaining is arguing from a position of more people=more important vs. the people who are paying for the service=the ones who are allowing all those other people to basically be here in the first place. The arrogance of the position that their *free* content is *inherently more valuable* because there is more of it is pissing off a whole lot of people who at this point, would be perfectly happy if the folks who were so up in arms deleted their accounts permanently.

Of course they won't, because as you have noted, there's *no other* service that is similar to the LJ opensource model that is offering the free/no ads thing either.
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on March 21st, 2008 05:40 pm (UTC)
For every person bitching about this whole thing who also does not have a paid account and never has had one*, who has said that they will take their content and go home and then oh then won't WE be sorry?

Show me.

If a person who decries this move has not ever had a paid account or donated or done anything like that, even receiving paid account time as a gift (not coincidentally the only way you know someone values your content enough to consider it worth paying for), and claims that LJ would be poorer without their content, does not make good on the threat to go away, then ... well, I probably wasn't listening to that person, anyway, to be quite honest. That person should, right away, right now, delete his or her LJ account and go elsewhere. Show me that we're so much worse off without that precious content. Come back in a year and ask me if I ever noticed the lack.

* Those who have previously had paid accounts and let them lapse because they did not want to support the business model are doing exactly what they ought: voting with their dollars. I have no problem with that; this is a person who pulled his or her own weight on the server/bandwidth equation and has decided not to contribute to/support the company any longer.