The drama, oh the drama

[angelophile]

So, apparently there's some kind of boycot today for Livejournal because... well, I'm not sure. From what I can gather it's because A) Livejournal introduced advertising on the FREE accounts B) They didn't give advance warning of this and C) their new policy is to insist on the deletion of image of minors engaged in sexual activity, even if they're not illegal (ie: drawn images, not photographs).

Now, I'm not boycotting because A) I pay for my livejournal and I get no ads. What I do get for a measley twenty bucks a year is a cool online journal. Now, people acting like there's a right to a free journal, completely advertising free? There's not. You get what you pay for. Posting stuff on the site doesn't mean Livejournal owes you. B) Um... why should they and C) dear god, if people consider pictures of kids in sexual situations acceptable, drawn, painted, photographed or in crayon, and genuinely believe it's something they should PROTEST about Livejournal saying they're not gonna tolerate then I despair, I really do.

So I'm posting to do the opposite. There's no right to get anything for free. And basic accounts are STILL free. They just have advertising. Well, big woop, if you don't think LJ's worth 20 bucks a year or advertising offends you that much, big woop. As for the other policy change I'm all for it and so you can consider this post my wholehearted support. If people wanna post pics of Harry banging Ron, I'm sure other sites will be more welcoming and don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.

I was gonna go down to my sister's tomorrow to stay for Saturday, Sunday and Monday, but my cold's come back to kick my ass again and rather than go and have a miserable time tomorrow cos I feel crap and spread it around I'll probably leave Sunday and return Monday.

Finally making some headway with the animation stuff I've been playing with. Not happy with it but it'll have to do, for now.

I have a big Thorntons chocolate egg sat here my boss bought me, but I'm loath to open it because I will eat it all. but looks soooo good.

You've been great. My name's Coco the scab.

Comments

[tadiera.livejournal.com]

There's a reason I'm posting a lot today. I think it's insanely ridiculous that people are getting their panties in a bunch because a company decided to try to actually make money.

[occamsnailfile.livejournal.com]

Well, the company is making money anyway--if customers are unsatisfied with the service, they are quite welcome to indicate their displeasure in any number of ways including vocalization as well as seeking a new service. A lot of LJ people just happen to be unable to express displeasure without using a high-pitched nasal whine which is clinically proven to destroy sympathy.

Their flagging system is much more questionable than the whole kid-pr0ns thing, as it lets the community flag things, which includes stuff like atheism and lesbians, two interests very dear to my own heart--but I don't care enough to really go on about it in much detail.

I didn't post today because, well, wouldn't want to break a good habit of not posting now would I?

[newnumber6.livejournal.com]

Ha ha, you posted after the boycott was already over, so your anti-protest means nothing!

Actually, from what I've followed of it (which isn't much, my participation was more spur of the moment as I was on the fence. The tipping point by just a desire to take a break and see what it's like), c) isn't really an issue this time at all, at least not one of the core ones (unless they changed it in the last minute), although I'm sure some people are adding it to their personal reasons. But then some people are probably adding "LJ is funded by Nazi gold!" to their personal reasons. What's more of an issue is that Livejournal decided to filter their top interests lists, so that interests presumably deemed 'unacceptable' wouldn't show up. Such 'unacceptable' interests included things like 'bisexuality' and other things that seemed, at _best_, inadvertantly homophobic to try and censor. (it has been reverted and now they're claiming it was a "mistake")

As to the other two points? To me it's more of an issue that Livejournal as a whole had promised certain things. That included that ads/paying would always be optional. Yes, the company wants to make money, but if they didn't think they could under the previous structure, knowing the promises, they shouldn't have bought it. That simple. They depend on the goodwill of people continuing with them despite the change of ownership, they should be held to the same promises. At the very _least_ if they were going to change it, they should have announced it in advance, acknowledged that they were going back on the word, but say they couldn't make money under the current system. That might have been acceptable. But, like most of their controversial changes, they tried sneaking it under the radar, and then gave bull#@%$ reasons when they were called on it, which suggests to me it's not about making money, it's about making _more_ money at the expense of integrity. That's a dangerous pattern of behavior, and one I think people have every right to protest against.

I also do think it's fundamentally wrongheaded. Not immoral, just wrong - that forcing people to take ads or pay will lower LJ's attractiveness more than the current system, because it _is_ a competitive market, and they're competing with _free_. There _are_ free, ad-free journals out there, ones that offer more features like free icons and such than LJ does. LJ's more popular because of the name recognition and the fact that there are a lot of people here already. Drive people away with bad policies or behaviour or fail to keep attracting them, they might well lose by trying to gain more. Granted, this is a personal assessment and I admit I could be predictively wrong.

[angelophile.livejournal.com]

Lies! The protest was still on when I posted, my LJ's just set to the real time, not some crazy wannabe timezone.

As for the rest, the top list filtering? I don't really have an issue with that. Yes, obviously I can imagine those who are bisexual or homosexual or whatever being slightly offended if their sexuality is deemed "unexceptable" but I think it's pretty clear that LJ was probably just trying to prevent the list looking like a pron search on Google. I think to take it as a direct attack on your sexuality you'd have to be pretty sensitive. I see the point, but if this has since been corrected, why boycott?

As for supposed promises that LJ would always be ad free. I never read such promises. I'm not gonna condemn LJ for going back on such a silly promise, if they made it anyway.

Yes, I do agree an ad free environment is better for the end user. I agree it's a competitive market. What I don't necessarily agree with is that Livejournal NEEDS people who won't accept that if they get something FOR FREE it needs to make money somewhere and that will be through advertising. What's in it for Livejournal? They can attract millions of people here by offering an ad free service and the people are using their servers, creating cool online journals and what do LJ get out of it? If people aren't paying and they get no revenue through advertising, nothing.

I really can't understand people getting all indignant about the quality of something they're given for free.

[newnumber6.livejournal.com]

What does LJ get out of ad-free? Simple. They get more users.

Remember, nobody's (well, okay, nobody rational) is saying LJ should have _any_ ads. The previous structure, where some people could choose ads for more perks, was okay. Hell, I'd even say a good compromise to the current issue is to say "Okay, from now on you can't _sign up_ as ad-free Basic, but if it's really that important to you you can go into your settings and change it later". Most people probably won't be bothered (and only would be if the ads get really intrusive).

The theory goes that you attract a lot of users, and some of them are going to like the service enough to pay to get more features. Some of them are going to like it enough to go with ads. But even the people who aren't? Are attracting friends, who are attracting friends, who may make the choices that make you more money and they're making posts that keep those friends refreshing that page and looking at the ads (or liking the community enough to pay for it). The cost of the 'freeloaders' is more than made up for by those they attract. A business can be profitable while being completely free so long as it's supported by a % of its users, and on the internet the % you needed can get pretty small.

It's kind of (but different from, since the business model is totally different) the whole "paying for subscription to online news" thing. It used to be if you wanted to read newspapers online, you had to pay for a subscription. But gradually it's seemingly being realized that if it's free, more people will link to it, more people will visit, and you'll get more eyeballs for your ads, and make more money that way, and that, this being the internet and all, it's usually available for free elsewhere anyway.

[angelophile.livejournal.com]

Attracting more users is kinda pointless if they're not gonna pay for anything. The majority of the people boycotting presumably take offense to the end of ad free accounts. Well they didn't go anywhere. You can still get them. For twenty bucks a year.

Now, if all these people protesting can't bring themselves to pay 20 bucks for all the content that Livejournal gives them, what point is there keeping them happy? Attracting millions of users is pointless if none of them are prepared to pay. Now, Livejournal obviously has attracted a lot of users by being free. I suspect the percentage of those prepared to pay is very very small. I have every sympathy with trying to make money in other ways.

And you said it yourself - if it's free, more people will link to it, more people will visit, and you'll get more eyeballs for your ads, and make more money that way. The basic accounts ARE still free, correct? But no longer free from advertising? What's the difference? Livejournal aren't demanding everyone pay, just offering the same service as the model you use as an example - free subscription with the revenue coming from ads.

[newnumber6.livejournal.com]

Attracting more users is kinda pointless if they're not gonna pay for anything.

And forcing people to either pay or view ads is pointless if you're going to drive away people, and the people who are only here because their friends are follow, and so on, or if you behave in such a way that people who might otherwise have paid decide not to. Everyone, in a sense, pays by helping producing content that the people who do decide to pay or view ads enjoy.

Attracting more users means that some of them will pay. LJ must already be profitable that way, otherwise the people who bought it are idiots. If they buy something not profitable and completely speculative like the internet, with the suspicion they can make it profitable by changing things that make it attractive, they're dumb and deserve to fail. So the question is how to make it _more_ profitable. I believe the new way is wrongheaded, it ignores that the people aren't just countable widgets that are valued individually, they interrelate in complex ways. You can't just say "well if they're not going to pay anyway, screw them, why bother makin them happy?" Because just as attracting more users means some of them will pay, driving away more users means driving away some who will pay. Let's say I love LJ and paid for a membership and extra icons and all that. But really, I'm here a few friends. They don't pay. They get pissed off at something, anything, even something that _only_ affects the people who don't pay, and decide to leave, go somewhere else. I follow them. Maybe I might not delete my account, but I decide to stop paying because I'm not here anymore. I don't look at the ads. By losing those friends, they lost the people who paid. Now, right now, that's not me. Previously I've paid when I felt I could, and had intention to continue from time to time, but some of the behaviour I've seen from LJ of late's (not just this, but their general attitude) made me decide not to until I see some improvement. But I have convinced a couple people I knew elsewhere to get LJs, and some of them _have_ paid (hell, I think all of them have, I didn't do too much direct prosletyzing for it). And if enough of my friends left, I probably would too. Somebody else would get any eventual profit from my goodwill, not towards the company, but towards the friends the company allows me to associate with.

Every user on LJ is a customer, whether they pay or look at ads or not, because they're all tied together. You can (and probably must) decide you have to alienate some of them at the expense of others at times, but it's not an easy win/lose calculation.

Something that doesn't get you any direct money can get you indirect money. Something what seems to gain you money can actually cost you money. Trying to convert everybody into direct money producers _can_ be a losing position.

The newspaper model is a _different_ model, because the people who come, generally speaking, don't _contribute_ or form a community. They come and look and go away. Perfect for ad-sponsored. So obviously you can't make a perfect mapping to LJ. I was only drawing the comparison to the way that something that is seen as getting less money (lowering your price to free) is actually more profitable.

Now we probably disagree over whether LJ will lose out in this case, so there's probably not much point in continuing to argue that point, I just wanted to put forth the basic points of the general arguement.

[angelophile.livejournal.com]

I get the argument and actually, I do agree that ultimately people will be driven away from Livejournal. I can understand people not wanting to deal with pesky ads if they don't want to and yep, forcing people to have ads or pay is gonna be an annoyance when there's alternatives out there that are ad free.

However, I can't support the attitude of those boycotting like Livejournal owed THEM something. They don't. Livejournal provide webspace and an online journal. For free. It's the attitude of people who refuse to pay 20 measley bucks a year and then act like LJ owes THEM that I can't support.