and has trotted out the "don't negotiate with terrorists" mindset (not that phrasing, mind you, but the same reasoning -- not that the phrasing he did use wasn't bad enough)
hrm.
i've read a couple of different translations, and my take on the matter is still firmly on the side of the belief that you don't take up rational discussions with people who are too angry to be rational. that's not a question of terrorism or response to terrorism; that's basic mediation and therapy/counselling communications tactics 101. you give the angry party (parties) room to vent and be heard, *then* you go on and deal with the issue. you never try and rationalize in the middle of a shouting match; it just doesn't work.
i think there are LJ users who *are* quite capable of being rational on the issue, but i don't get the impression that the "mass LJ Hive Mind" that is driving the boycott motion is really in that rational state.
and as you say, the LJ boycott is no more effective than the "don't buy gas" boycotts, so what's the purpose of empty gestures, given your very logical explanation of why they won't work? i understand the principle of the "dashed hope", but i also believe seriously that wanting things to not change and *demanding* of a profit-oriented business that things not change, is a forlorn hope. people who have the money for the service will pony up, and those who don't will eventually be disenfranchised enough by the Profitable Business Mentality to deal with the hassles of going elsewhere. you and i have both been online a very, very long time... can you remind me of one net service that *didn't* go the way of profit or die?
To the contrary, this boycott will show a permanent one-day dip in their user content. It will create a record that they can't get rid of... one that shows that, if we want to, we *can* kill the site because of their refusal to listen to us. I think that's important, myself.
Only if thay choose to consider it significant, which oil companies don't seem to do when they see a one-day dip.
OTOH, it may show us that we have that power, even if it doesn't show SUP. (And demonstrating it to ourselves may in fact be worth doing.)
SUP most likely thinks that either we don't have the will to do it for more than a day, or that we can be trivially replaced. To get their attention by such means as this, we need to demonstrate that those assumptions are wrong.
"[...] you don't take up rational discussions with people who are too angry to be rational. [...] you give the angry party (parties) room to vent and be heard, *then* you go on and deal with the issue. [...] i think there are LJ users who *are* quite capable of being rational on the issue, but i don't get the impression that the 'mass LJ Hive Mind' that is driving the boycott motion is really in that rational state."
I can see that point, phrased that way. But so far (and yes, this is coloured by our experiences with 6A), there's the impression that we're not being heard, which makes the "vent and be heard" phase that much longer, doesn't it?
Ans does this mean that as long as there are enough still-angry people to notice, none of us get so much as a peep, or a glimpse of progress?
I'm not entirely certain what the right course is there, but I'm pretty sure the way things are currently being handled isn't exactly helping. Some folks (judging by the tone of their comments to the news entries) appear to have started off reasonable and progressed to shouting as a reaction to appearing not to be heard.
"what's the purpose of empty gestures, given your very logical explanation of why they won't work?"
As I said, a symbolic gesture of solidarity with the other "striking" users. I don't expect SUP to be convinced of anything by it, so I'm not doing it for their benefit. I'm doing it for the benefit of other users who want reassurance that they're not just some tiny, marginal fraction of the userbase. Unless, of course, it turns out that they are despite my adding one more to the count.
"wanting things to not change and *demanding* of a profit-oriented business that things not change, is a forlorn hope"
Nobody reasonable expects things to Never Change At All here; sometimes the right reaction to change is to indulde in a bit of nostalgia and move on. But there's a perception that some of the changes will be damaging to the long-term health of LiveJournal, and/or to the most valued aspects of it for the folks who are upset.
"can you remind me of one net service that *didn't* go the way of profit or die?"
I'm not opposed to the owners making a profit, and I hope to make that perfectly clear in the economics+ethics post I plan to write. But when what you start with is a community (and neither 6A nor SUP started with anything less than that in LJ; they bought it already formed), I think it's wise to attempt to profit in ways that harm that community as little as possible, and certainly believe that the community is right to be upset when the owners appear to want to squeeze every possible drop of profit from them without regard to the damage to the community, or to replace them wholesale with a different sort of community altogether.
I honestly believe that some of what SUP is doing is bad for the long-term viability of LiveJournal both as a community and as a business.
Ultimately, LJ will become not worth my time and/or do something so objectionable that I cannot in good conscience continue to support it, and I'll leave; or LJ will continue to be worth my time, possibly become worth my money again, and remain worthy of my participation, and I'll stay. I would very much prefer the latter; I fear the former (and have taken steps to reduce the pain of leaving). Ultimately, the only power I have over SUP other than speaking persuasively, is to reward them with my participation or go elsewhere. I understand that.
Off the top of my head I cannot recall an 'owned' net service (I'll leave out services that are more protocol-based than resource-based, such as IRC and Usenet) that didn't eventually turn to trying to make a buck or die, other than government-funded services (which I'm sure we can agree are a special case) and ones that deliberately stayed small enough to be hobby-sized. But along with the ones that have successfuly turned to profit, there have been many that botched the attempt and destroyed themselves in ther puruit of profit. It is that last category that I dearly hope LJ can avoid falling into.
The comments I saw from Russian-speakers before that translation was posted pretty much said, "Get somebody disinterested to translated it, because if I do it you won't believe that I'm not exaggerating to make him look bad." I'm don't know anything about that translator, and the other translations I've seen so far have just been the non-Russian-speaker attempts to make sense of the Babelfish rendering.
Arguably the LJ gestalt is not of sound mind at the moment — but neither is SUP's management, evidently. Maybe this should be viewed as the equivalent of a time-out.
(no subject)
hrm.
i've read a couple of different translations, and my take on the matter is still firmly on the side of the belief that you don't take up rational discussions with people who are too angry to be rational. that's not a question of terrorism or response to terrorism; that's basic mediation and therapy/counselling communications tactics 101. you give the angry party (parties) room to vent and be heard, *then* you go on and deal with the issue. you never try and rationalize in the middle of a shouting match; it just doesn't work.
i think there are LJ users who *are* quite capable of being rational on the issue, but i don't get the impression that the "mass LJ Hive Mind" that is driving the boycott motion is really in that rational state.
and as you say, the LJ boycott is no more effective than the "don't buy gas" boycotts, so what's the purpose of empty gestures, given your very logical explanation of why they won't work? i understand the principle of the "dashed hope", but i also believe seriously that wanting things to not change and *demanding* of a profit-oriented business that things not change, is a forlorn hope. people who have the money for the service will pony up, and those who don't will eventually be disenfranchised enough by the Profitable Business Mentality to deal with the hassles of going elsewhere. you and i have both been online a very, very long time... can you remind me of one net service that *didn't* go the way of profit or die?
(no subject)
(no subject)
OTOH, it may show us that we have that power, even if it doesn't show SUP. (And demonstrating it to ourselves may in fact be worth doing.)
SUP most likely thinks that either we don't have the will to do it for more than a day, or that we can be trivially replaced. To get their attention by such means as this, we need to demonstrate that those assumptions are wrong.
(no subject)
(no subject)
I can see that point, phrased that way. But so far (and yes, this is coloured by our experiences with 6A), there's the impression that we're not being heard, which makes the "vent and be heard" phase that much longer, doesn't it?
Ans does this mean that as long as there are enough still-angry people to notice, none of us get so much as a peep, or a glimpse of progress?
I'm not entirely certain what the right course is there, but I'm pretty sure the way things are currently being handled isn't exactly helping. Some folks (judging by the tone of their comments to the
"what's the purpose of empty gestures, given your very logical explanation of why they won't work?"
As I said, a symbolic gesture of solidarity with the other "striking" users. I don't expect SUP to be convinced of anything by it, so I'm not doing it for their benefit. I'm doing it for the benefit of other users who want reassurance that they're not just some tiny, marginal fraction of the userbase. Unless, of course, it turns out that they are despite my adding one more to the count.
"wanting things to not change and *demanding* of a profit-oriented business that things not change, is a forlorn hope"
Nobody reasonable expects things to Never Change At All here; sometimes the right reaction to change is to indulde in a bit of nostalgia and move on. But there's a perception that some of the changes will be damaging to the long-term health of LiveJournal, and/or to the most valued aspects of it for the folks who are upset.
"can you remind me of one net service that *didn't* go the way of profit or die?"
I'm not opposed to the owners making a profit, and I hope to make that perfectly clear in the economics+ethics post I plan to write. But when what you start with is a community (and neither 6A nor SUP started with anything less than that in LJ; they bought it already formed), I think it's wise to attempt to profit in ways that harm that community as little as possible, and certainly believe that the community is right to be upset when the owners appear to want to squeeze every possible drop of profit from them without regard to the damage to the community, or to replace them wholesale with a different sort of community altogether.
I honestly believe that some of what SUP is doing is bad for the long-term viability of LiveJournal both as a community and as a business.
Ultimately, LJ will become not worth my time and/or do something so objectionable that I cannot in good conscience continue to support it, and I'll leave; or LJ will continue to be worth my time, possibly become worth my money again, and remain worthy of my participation, and I'll stay. I would very much prefer the latter; I fear the former (and have taken steps to reduce the pain of leaving). Ultimately, the only power I have over SUP other than speaking persuasively, is to reward them with my participation or go elsewhere. I understand that.
Off the top of my head I cannot recall an 'owned' net service (I'll leave out services that are more protocol-based than resource-based, such as IRC and Usenet) that didn't eventually turn to trying to make a buck or die, other than government-funded services (which I'm sure we can agree are a special case) and ones that deliberately stayed small enough to be hobby-sized. But along with the ones that have successfuly turned to profit, there have been many that botched the attempt and destroyed themselves in ther puruit of profit. It is that last category that I dearly hope LJ can avoid falling into.
(no subject)
I was really curious whether that translation purposefully made him sound like a jerk.
(no subject)
(no subject)