Aftermath

[flexibeast]

So the LJ strike period has now ended.

i was disappointed to see that many people did not observe the strike. However, it seems to me that there are a number of reasons why this might have occurred:

1. Those people were not aware of the strike in the first place. That seems unlikely, given the amount of coverage it got beforehand, but it's still certainly possible.


2. Those people were aware of the strike, but thought that it was a rolling strike which one participated in from midnight to midnight in one's time zone, rather than from midnight to midnight GMT.


3. Those people were aware of the strike, but needed to post due to personal reasons (e.g. a family emergency).


4. Those people were aware of the strike, but couldn't be bothered participating.


5. Those people were aware of the strike, and were actively against it (for a variety of reasons).

With regards to each of these points, my thoughts are:

1. Oh well. We tried to promote it as widely as we could.


2. D'oh! Obviously the strike logistics weren't explained well enough.


3. Fair enough.


4. Unless you're literally (and i here use "literally", well, literally, not merely as an intensifier) addicted to LJ, i would have thought it would take more effort to post content than to not post content. And anyway, is it really that hard to avoid posting content so that you're not negatively impacting on the efforts of the people who could be bothered participating?


5. Here's where i really have issues, which i'll spend the rest of this post discussing.

Let me address the arguments i've heard against the strike:

• "It's ludicrous to complain about a company choosing to no longer provide a free (and ad-free) service."
  
  In some circumstances, sure. In this particular situation, no. It's not like Basic accounts provide no financial benefit to SUP. In fact, quite the opposite. People with Basic accounts provide a significant amount of the content that draws people to the LiveJournal site in the first place, and thus makes the site a money-making proposition. It's not like SUP themselves created a mass of original content which they initially provided for free, but have now decided to charge for (which would be fair enough). The LiveJournal deal, pre-SUP, has essentially been "We provide users with free accounts so that they create content for free, which we can then leverage to encourage people to pay for extra features and services relating to that content." SUP's new position breaks this deal.


• "It's not going to work."
  
  Well, i think it's unlikely that the GetUp petition to get Our Glorious Leader, Kevin Rudd, to put some pressure on the Chinese government over Tibet, will work. But at the same time, i don't actively engage in activities that reduce the possibility that it might work. If it does, great! If it doesn't, then that in itself is useful, as it will give many people an education about what sort of activism does and doesn't work in certain contexts. And in fact, if you're wanting to prove that a given action can't work, it's best to actively support it (as long as there aren't significant negative social and political consequences to doing so), because otherwise supporters of the action are able to say, "It would have worked, if it weren't for those meddling kids!" - that is, they'll continue to feel that the idea is okay, and that it's only its execution that's the issue.


• "It's okay for SUP to disallow the creation of new Basic accounts, because it's a business decision".
  
  To me, this argument is the psychological basis for the awful state of our world today. i'm astounded by the general idea that people think it's reasonable for business decisions to take place outside an ethical and moral framework which includes respect for human rights, health¹ and/or dignity, let alone respect for humans-as-customers. Nestlé spreading FUD about breastmilk in the third world, so that mothers give their children Nestlé formula milk? A business decision. Halliburton's actions in Iraq? A business decision. Companies treating pollution of the environment as an 'externality', not worrying about the pollution they create so that they don't have to cover the costs of reducing or repairing it? A business decision. The actions in the financial markets of companies like Bear Stearns? Business decisions. And don't get me started on the business decisions made by Microsoft, which amongst other things result in a net drain on the financial resources of the education systems of a number of countries.
  
  Now, i'm not saying that SUP's actions are necessarily in the same league as the business decision of the above-listed companies. What i am saying is that i think it's wrong to dismiss any debate about the possible / actual broader implications of a business decision by saying "It's a business decision" as though that automatically trumps any other concerns. And in this case, i think that it's more than reasonable to question SUP's "business decision", on the basis of the analysis i gave in my response to the "It's ludicrous to complain . . ." argument, above.

In addition to all the above, i also feel it's important to note that the new Basic accounts policy has really been the back-breaking straw:

• Last year saw a "shoot first and ask questions later" administrative action against accounts claimed to be promoting child abuse. Around 500 people had their accounts inappropriately suspended, which not only denied them the use of their accounts (a relatively small matter), but which also tarred them with the "promoter of child abuse" brush. The accounts were later restored, with an apology; but i'd be interested to know how many of the people involved feel the "Oops, our bad" response compensated for what happened to them.


• As ruthlawrence pointed out here and here, certain interests were removed from the "Most Popular Interests" list. Given that the interests in question are often surrounded by controversy, it's not clear whether this action was deliberate or accidental. (More generally, i recommend reading Ruth's comments about the strike.)


• In recent times, SUP has tended to simply present certain changes as fait accomplis, without having flagged it with the user base first. They say that they're going to change this, to do a better job of communicating with us - and then they present us with another fait accompli!

So this strike was an attempt by a number of us to show how fed up we're getting with recent administrative behaviours. Or are a business' customers / clients not allowed to complain, in the manner they see fit, about how they feel that business is treating them?

My strong opinions on this matter, as indicated by the above, might actually be incorrect. It should be noted, however, that it's based on extensive activist experience together with personal beliefs that i've arrived at after much deliberation. So i'm unlikely to change my opinions on the basis of an LJ-comment-based debate, which in turn means such a debate is unlikely to be productive for all sides involved. Please keep this in mind when posting any comments to this entry.

---

1. Of course, many people feel that "good health" should be a fundamental human right (i'm one of them). i only mention it separately to ensure that it's not overlooked, as i feel it's quite central to the point i'm wanting to make.
 

Comments

[candika.livejournal.com]

I think what got to me most was the underhanded way in which they did it. If they'd made a post and told us they were stopping basic accounts and allowed us to respond I wouldn't have been nearly as angry. As it was I felt I was being treated contemptuously. Then there was the crap about Anton whatzizname saying that if we disagreed with what the management chose yo do we were in some way disloyal and trying to destroy their business. I've been here since 2001 and I take offence at the idea that I'm in anyway disloyal or destructive.

And then there was the meddling with the interests lists. The list is out index, our catalogue and if they delete certain groups and interests from it that makes some of us invisible. As long as we obey the law we have every right to be here and be seen, Damnit!

[sunflowerp]

Certainly it's "a business decision". Why people cite that as if it somehow renders the decision (however shortsighted, ill-advised, badly-researched, or unethical) sacrosanct, baffles me. Business decisions, like any other decisions, are subject to consequences. (My city recently lost a business that many of us are very sorry to lose, but in part it was because they made a very poor choice of location for what they wanted to do with the business.)

6Apart, and now SUP, have made decisions that have, as one of the consequences, the alienation of their customer base. We the customers are under no legal or ethical obligation to continue supporting this business if we don't like how it does business, despite whingeing about "destroying" the business. ("Corporate person" as Entitlement Gnome - what crap!)

I can understand those who eschewed the strike because they didn't feel the problems had anything to do with them (though they might do well to consider Martin Niemuller). But those who avoided it because they think we shouldn't question "business decisions"? Here, have some more corporate koolaid.

Sunflower