More on our new Russian overlords
Mar. 22nd, 2008 08:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
roadrunnertwice(This was going to be a reply to a comment, but I think it's worth making as a post instead.)
It's not that advertising is bad per se; I use all kinds of sites with ads, and it's not a big deal in the slightest. But LJ's new owners really do seem to view it as an engine for making money, rather than as something that ought to be maintained because people need it.
LJ used to have an explicit promise that you could host your journal here without having to shill things you don't care about to your readers. That was eventually replaced by an implicit promise of the same, but it was still there. The logic was that although you were using a portion of LJ's resources and not directly contributing funds, you made up for it by enriching their network -- you produced content that drew people to the site, some of whom would start journals of their own, and you bonded socially with them and with other users. Some of those users would be the ones paying the money to feed the maintainers and keep the service afloat, and LJ tried to provide features compelling enough to keep enticing more people into paying, but they could never come up with a better enticement to stay on the site in the first place than the fact that those users' friends were here. That's what the basic users contributed to the bottom line.
It was a chain of logic based on a fundamental respect for the community and the users. The new owners aren't basing their business decisions on the same principles, and you can tell -- actions taken out of pure market-capitalist greed smell different than those informed by some modicum of social conscience. (Well, and one of the giveaways is that it happened under cover of night, so to speak -- they made no public announcement until they'd already made the switch.)
I think it's fair to say that the uproar isn't really about the concrete effect this decision is going to have on most users, which is ultimately going to be between minor and nil. It's about the other changes presaged by it. We've already seen more hints about where this'll take us: at about the same time as this ruckus started, some people noticed that a filter had been silently installed in the code for the "Popular Interests" page, in order to keep interests like depression and bisexuality from showing up there. (That code's gone now, but only because a tiny group of users had been sharp enough to catch them at it.) As near as anyone can tell, that filter was put in to clean up the place and make it more attractive to advertisers. It's indicative of a mentality that is both new to LiveJournal and entirely unwelcome on it. People are worried.
Are you familiar with Terry Pratchett's novels? Have you read Going Postal yet? This is pretty much what was going on with the clacks system. Pratchett's a better political writer than I, and makes the point with more elegance and eloquence than I yet have in me, but he's saying the same thing in that book as I'm trying to get at in this post: there are some things that cannot be effectively run by men who view everything as an engine for making money. A lot of people seem to think that LiveJournal is one of those things. I suppose we'll soon find out.
It's not that advertising is bad per se; I use all kinds of sites with ads, and it's not a big deal in the slightest. But LJ's new owners really do seem to view it as an engine for making money, rather than as something that ought to be maintained because people need it.
LJ used to have an explicit promise that you could host your journal here without having to shill things you don't care about to your readers. That was eventually replaced by an implicit promise of the same, but it was still there. The logic was that although you were using a portion of LJ's resources and not directly contributing funds, you made up for it by enriching their network -- you produced content that drew people to the site, some of whom would start journals of their own, and you bonded socially with them and with other users. Some of those users would be the ones paying the money to feed the maintainers and keep the service afloat, and LJ tried to provide features compelling enough to keep enticing more people into paying, but they could never come up with a better enticement to stay on the site in the first place than the fact that those users' friends were here. That's what the basic users contributed to the bottom line.
It was a chain of logic based on a fundamental respect for the community and the users. The new owners aren't basing their business decisions on the same principles, and you can tell -- actions taken out of pure market-capitalist greed smell different than those informed by some modicum of social conscience. (Well, and one of the giveaways is that it happened under cover of night, so to speak -- they made no public announcement until they'd already made the switch.)
I think it's fair to say that the uproar isn't really about the concrete effect this decision is going to have on most users, which is ultimately going to be between minor and nil. It's about the other changes presaged by it. We've already seen more hints about where this'll take us: at about the same time as this ruckus started, some people noticed that a filter had been silently installed in the code for the "Popular Interests" page, in order to keep interests like depression and bisexuality from showing up there. (That code's gone now, but only because a tiny group of users had been sharp enough to catch them at it.) As near as anyone can tell, that filter was put in to clean up the place and make it more attractive to advertisers. It's indicative of a mentality that is both new to LiveJournal and entirely unwelcome on it. People are worried.
Are you familiar with Terry Pratchett's novels? Have you read Going Postal yet? This is pretty much what was going on with the clacks system. Pratchett's a better political writer than I, and makes the point with more elegance and eloquence than I yet have in me, but he's saying the same thing in that book as I'm trying to get at in this post: there are some things that cannot be effectively run by men who view everything as an engine for making money. A lot of people seem to think that LiveJournal is one of those things. I suppose we'll soon find out.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-26 07:26 am (UTC)I have read Going Postal, and I hit my head pretty hard on my bookshelf while I was looking for my copy yesterday. I didn't find it, but I was looking mainly because I was trying to remember how Moist chose the designs for his stamps, and if he thought collectors would spend money on the stamps and not use them (as a means for revenue) or if the printer guy or bank guys were going to go in on it with the post office.
And not because I think there's a specific line connecting that idea to the Overlords, but because it's an American ideal to make money, it's success and all that. And I think the idea that the consumer deserves something, or a lot, for their money/time/existence is ingrained in popular attitude. And it's all tied together. I think that the consumer attitude that is so connected to business is the same one people are using now.
I'm not saying it's right, but I think it's hard to name a handful of things in western culture that can't be commodified (spellcheck says that isn't a word, so I hope you know what I mean).
And I think people need to pick their battles. The popular interests filter is infinitely more important than free accounts with advertising, but people are louder about the advertising.
And as for people needing livejournal, I'm not so sold on that one.I don't think people are that serious about taking back the written word, I have a healthy distrust of the media, but I don't take bloggers seriously because everyone has an agenda, or a bias. If people were truly serious about an open space for free thoughts and sharing them and all that, then they should make it. I deleted my previous comment about the sellers have piles of comforting cash, because I thought it was flippant and kind of rude, but I also think it's true.