As I said above, I'm concerned about the interests, but relieved to hear they're back. Yes, one shouldn't attribute to malice what is actually due to incompetence.
I'm sorry to see basic accounts go, but more than that, I'm upset with the way they did it. Yes, the Advisory Board is advisory (though see posts by two of them: here and here). Yes, LJ couldn't announce the decision before putting it into effect, or tens of thousands of people would have snatched up new basic accounts to sell later.
I object to not including the change in News on the flimsy excuse that we all already have accounts and so don't need to know--because none of us would ever want a new basic account?! I object to the condescending assertions that it was not a business decision to benefit LJ and SUP but to make things easier for new users: Jason Shellen's statements on the matter. (Yes, some of the people responding to him are jerks and use highly offensive language, I don't support these kinds of responses). I object to the way only the American FAQ was updated, leaving the many users in other countries uncertain about the policy change, though apparently it was planned for some time.
See also the interview with Aaron Nosik, where he calls the strike "blackmail" and says those who want to dissuade advertisers from using LJ (which I don't!) are "idiots."
I'm not trying to hurt the company. I'm asking it to take notice of users and deal honestly with us. I'm not twisting anyone's arm to take part in the strike, and I'm not trying to "blackmail" the company. (His example, by the way, is garbage: "But if I come to you and say 'Take away the comma or I will beat you' Will you really go checking your spelling after that?" Editors say, "Take away the comma, or I won't publish your work." They have that right. And I have the right to keep my comma and take my work elsewhere. No one is beating anyone.)
I'm asking that we be fully informed of decisions that affect our usage and honest reasons behind changes. I want LJ to thrive! If these recent mistakes are simple missteps by new owners, the strike may encourage them to learn to communicate with us better; that's a good thing. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. No one gets hurt. Some of us will have lost a day of LJ. Many won't notice. The company won't lose significant revenue, but I hope it will see some differences in numbers and realize that major policy changes have to be handled better. If it's open about what it's doing, most of us will be less suspicious about the incredible disappearing interests; I'd never have paid any attention to that but for the other recent changes and the bad explanations thereof.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 12:01 pm (UTC)I'm sorry to see basic accounts go, but more than that, I'm upset with the way they did it. Yes, the Advisory Board is advisory (though see posts by two of them: here and here). Yes, LJ couldn't announce the decision before putting it into effect, or tens of thousands of people would have snatched up new basic accounts to sell later.
I object to not including the change in News on the flimsy excuse that we all already have accounts and so don't need to know--because none of us would ever want a new basic account?! I object to the condescending assertions that it was not a business decision to benefit LJ and SUP but to make things easier for new users: Jason Shellen's statements on the matter. (Yes, some of the people responding to him are jerks and use highly offensive language, I don't support these kinds of responses). I object to the way only the American FAQ was updated, leaving the many users in other countries uncertain about the policy change, though apparently it was planned for some time.
See also the interview with Aaron Nosik, where he calls the strike "blackmail" and says those who want to dissuade advertisers from using LJ (which I don't!) are "idiots."
I'm not trying to hurt the company. I'm asking it to take notice of users and deal honestly with us. I'm not twisting anyone's arm to take part in the strike, and I'm not trying to "blackmail" the company. (His example, by the way, is garbage: "But if I come to you and say 'Take away the comma or I will beat you' Will you really go checking your spelling after that?" Editors say, "Take away the comma, or I won't publish your work." They have that right. And I have the right to keep my comma and take my work elsewhere. No one is beating anyone.)
I'm asking that we be fully informed of decisions that affect our usage and honest reasons behind changes. I want LJ to thrive! If these recent mistakes are simple missteps by new owners, the strike may encourage them to learn to communicate with us better; that's a good thing. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. No one gets hurt. Some of us will have lost a day of LJ. Many won't notice. The company won't lose significant revenue, but I hope it will see some differences in numbers and realize that major policy changes have to be handled better. If it's open about what it's doing, most of us will be less suspicious about the incredible disappearing interests; I'd never have paid any attention to that but for the other recent changes and the bad explanations thereof.