Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Why are we holding the Content Strike?

Content Strike Friday March 21, from midnight to midnight GMT

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 news post -- even with cat macros -- just isn't powerful enough!

I will be emailing and snail-mailing SUP that the strike has four terms:

  1. Restore basic accounts for new account creation.

  2. Inform users before any change to the site that affects how we use the site or demands on our resources.

  3. Run change proposals by the Advisory Board and take their advice into account before implementation of any change.

  4. 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 lavendertook for the wording of the terms, with which I am in full agreement.


Mar. 17th, 2008 05:28 pm (UTC)
Hallo! Glad to see someone's organizing something! I'm with the group who think it's not long enough, but personally I'll just make a point of avoiding LJ for the whole weekend. I'll just have to sew or somethings; Gods know I'm behind in it.

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.
Mar. 17th, 2008 06:15 pm (UTC)
Vaguelly unrelated, but your icon is a million different levels of love. ^^
Mar. 17th, 2008 06:27 pm (UTC)
^^; Thanks. (cuddles the Mushroom Heartless)
Mar. 17th, 2008 07:46 pm (UTC)
I think using those keywords is precisely what will make them take it more seriously - it's the sort of thing they don't want to be accused of, and might have a knee-jerk reaction about in the opposite direction.

Although, yes, I find the censorship of 'depression' just as disgusting as 'bisexuallity', and just as perplexing as 'faeries'.
Mar. 17th, 2008 07:51 pm (UTC)
Maybe a slip-in sentence including all forms of censorship? The trigger words do get attention, but wriggle room is bad!
Mar. 18th, 2008 09:37 pm (UTC)
They want to PREVENT bisexuality? And faerlies? *confused*

I don't quite understand what they've been up to with this whole censor business...what's going on exactly?
Mar. 19th, 2008 11:22 pm (UTC)
This post and its related links should help to explain it to you.
Mar. 20th, 2008 08:44 pm (UTC)
Thanks for the link!

Latest Month

August 2016