We are holding the Content Strike because we want to demonstrate that LiveJournal is content-driven.
We are holding the Content Strike because we want the new owners of LiveJournal to better understand the power and resolve of the LJ Community of Users.
We are holding the Content Strike because all of us, Paid, Permanent and Plus users as well as Basic, want to demonstrate our solidarity as a Community of Users. We do not consider Basic users to be freeloaders, we consider them to be valuable content-providers and Friends.
We are holding the Content Strike because we ache to do something to show our displeasure, and commenting on the
I will be emailing and snail-mailing SUP that the strike has four terms:
- Restore basic accounts for new account creation.
- Inform users before any change to the site that affects how we use the site or demands on our resources.
- Run change proposals by the Advisory Board and take their advice into account before implementation of any change.
- Homophobia, misogyny, and racism must not be a part of the decision making processes about appropriate content of the site, including what user interests are deemed appropriate.
NOTE: I'm aware that there may be good business decisions for eliminating Basic accounts. If Basic accounts are to be eliminated, though, that action should be taken only after approval of the Advisory Board and consultation with the LJ Community of Users.
ETA: Credit and thanks due to

Comments
I think they ignore the fact that basic accounts are how most of us started. We got into it with free accounts, and when we found we liked it, we started paying for it. Drug dealers know this, why doesn't SUP?
But. As much as I might disagree with SUP's decision, I don't think they had any obligation to tell us in advance, or take a vote or anything. It might be a wise idea to test the waters with the advisory board, but this is in fact a service business. I don't expect any other site to which I subscribe OR service I purchase to clear it with me or any of their customers before they change policy.
It does suck to join now, but if I'm not mistaken, they are still going to have ad-supported "free" accounts. Yes, that sucks too. But it is how just about every other blogging site stays alive. There is something to be said for being the only one who doesn't charge for a basic account, and I certainly don't think of them as freeloaders. That's why I'll participate in the strike.
I just don't get the democracy-in-action part of this. It's a paid service. They aren't under any obligation to us beyond keeping the servers running. Hell, I think I'd feel ten times stronger about the strike if it was solely about Item 4. Help me understand, because just about everyone on my fiends list is riled up about this and I respect their opinions and yours.
I don't know that I see a problem with having ad-driven new accounts. Isn't that how it has been since shortly after Six Apart took over?
The only thing I have an issue with is number 4, and this is purely semantics. I think that using keywords like homophobia, racism, etc give them too much wriggle room. It's ghastly easy for them to say, "Oh, but we're trying to prevent it" or to claim that it's not bigotry, it's content maintainence. Instead, how about "censorship" in general without it being clearly defined in an easy-to-access place. The issue spreads well beyond homophobia, though that's where it's settling now. (For example, using this they can still censor depression and fanfiction.)
Just a thought.
What do you want people to do?
I know why, understand why, but I don't know what is to happen. No posting that day? No interests lists? what?
Please help me. RL is not going down the toilet properly (sewage issues) and I need extra assistance in understanding anything, right now.
I want to join in - the only thing that made me hesitate in taking part is the Blog365 challenge. I guess I could blog on InsaneJournal that day and record that entry as part of my summary. It's an honour system but I have a lot of honour.
I am positively livid about the censoring, especially censoring 'bisexuality.'
I'm annoyed that they didn't tell us about basic account removal. I'm ticked that they didn't talk to the advisory board first.
However, I can, on a very basic level, understand WHY they removed basic accounts. Their account sign-ups have significantly dropped since 2005. (From upwards of 14,000 per day down to about 7,000 per day.) Added with the fact that several people stopped paying for their accounts due to what 6A did before SUP bought LJ. Most of that is roll-over of bad business from 6A's actions, but the point is that they likely are making significantly less money.
Yes, we didn't like their decision on basic accounts, and it was a terrible way to go about it - but the basic account problem is, at the core, a customer service issue, and nothing more.
I AM in full support of of bringing back invitations - giving paid and permanent users to create basic accounts.
But I'm not sure I can take part in the strike that demands they bring back basic as it was before. And the fact that it's listed first kind of puts me off from it.
On the basis of the censorship issue (which is far more morally important to me - SUP is essentially telling us - or not telling us - that they're homophobic), I still want to send a statement to them.
I just can't do it with this strike because there are too many clauses attached to it. :(
I'll friended you if you don't mind. Great thing that you're organizing this.
That hurts my head. It is an Advisory Board, not a Governing Board. As in, they advise SUP/LJ - and SUP/LJ is free to follow that advice, or not. The Advisory Board doesn't approve, or disapprove, anything - that is not their role. They offer input on how they think things should, or should not, be done. But that's just one input into the decision matrix, and SUP may decide that they have good cause to make decisions counter to what the Advisory Board recommends.
As for consultation with the LJ Community of Users - that's generally not a good idea. A bad way to run a company is to run your decisions by your user base. Listening to input in general, doing surveys, data mining, etc, are all good ideas. Floating decisions out for consultation with the users - a very bad idea. Because any decision is going to annoy and/or upset some segment of users, and all you'll do is spend time trying to deal with the squeaky wheel.
Am I right & you are saying Live Journal now consider me to be a 'free-loader'?
Are they planning to get rid of free accounts?
If so, I'll definitely be joining the strike!
Thanks
Can you please point out where any of the above has been part of their decision to do away with new basic accounts?
For one, I do think we should be informed of all major changes, but I was under the impression that there are still Plus accounts, which are completely free. That's how I started out on LJ. So I guess I'm not entirely sure why basic accounts are needed when they have plus accounts for free that offer more than basic accounts... or is this more about letting us know about changes rather than this particular change?
I think that covers the first three points. My only other question is about #4. I'd just like to know more about what's happened (or happening) concerning that. I just don't exactly understand the point it's making- maybe I'm not reading it right, or something, but... I don't know, it has me slightly confused.
If you could clarify or answer any of my questions, that'd be terrific. I just don't want to blindly give my support to something that I don't completely understand.
Thanks.
Edited at 2008-03-18 06:26 pm (UTC)
Perhaps not everyone can totally, 100% agree on all those points. Does it really matter? Do we really expect them to honour all four, to the letter? Or are we trying to get their attention and let them know that we WILL be listened to (or else)?