Slashdot Mirror


LiveJournal Introduces "Sponsored Content"

piphil writes, "LiveJournal.com has just announced via their Business Discussions journal that they are introducing 'sponsored communities and features.' This has lead to an outcry from those who watch this community, who accuse LiveJournal of starting down the 'slippery slope' towards placing advertising on users' journals — some of which users already pay for the privilege of not having to see ads on the site. Read more below."

Interestingly, a few years ago — before LiveJournal's takeover by SixApart.com — the management released a "Social Contract" stating that LiveJournal would remain advertisement-free. Unfortunately it is impossible to link to this page at LiveJournal, as it has been silently deleted. However, we can read a copy of the document on the Internet Archive.

The user outcry has so far been limited to those who actively watch the lj_biz community. However, users are employing their own "viral marketing" techniques to spread the word across the user base. Many are worried about a MySpace-like descent into user-targeted advertising.

All this comes after the user base resisted introduction of advertising-supported user accounts, which swapped paying for extra features for seeing "targeted" banner adverts on the site.

These events raise prickly issue of user rights on such websites, and the validity of "user contracts" that can be changed at will by the provider with no subsequent compensation to affected users.

98 comments

  1. Oddly enough by Spazntwich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So has Slashdot, as evidenced by this "article."

    At least LJ is admitting to it.

    1. Re:Oddly enough by truthsearch · · Score: 1

      I've been here for years and I don't recall slashdot claiming moral superiority to anything. Many who post comments do, but not /. proper. Of course if you know of any examples feel free to correct me.

    2. Re:Oddly enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you know of anyone explicitly claiming moral superiority, ever, I'd be interested to see them. Generally people avoid that for fear of being percieved as judgemental moralizers. More often, moral superiority is implied by a person's comments: see the numerous posts by the editor michael on slashdot. This story, in particular, has a clear ring of moral superiority about it, for the simple reason that it implicitly admonishes Live Journal for its practices (could 'Unfortunately it is impossible to link to this page at LiveJournal, as it has been silently deleted.' be taken as anything but a condemnation?).

      There is a phrase (much overused, especially on this website) which summerizes the problem of a site like slashdot, which unapoligeitically carries the Piquepaille link-whore articles almost every day, carrying an article critical of a similar practice by another website: Pot Calling the Kettle Black.

      The only way we got Jon Katz off of this site was by near-unnanimous condemnation of him in each article he posted. This is the only way, in my opinion, that we can get rid of Piquepaille. You would do well to join in this, and not defend the indefensible.

      Yours,
      AC

    3. Re:Oddly enough by generic-man · · Score: 1

      "Here, let's make it clear: I AM BIASED ." -- michael, in an unusually long Slashdot post detailing the fact that he's been hired.

      Funny how there wasn't a word spoken officially when he got canned a short while ago.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    4. Re:Oddly enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SlimeJournal?

  2. It's good to be a pessimist by Valacosa · · Score: 2, Informative

    When the buyout happened, I remember reading the statement that the service wouldn't change much, that there wouldn't be ads on the site. I remember thinking to myself, "Bullshit. Why would sixapart buy it if they didn't want to wring as much money out of it as possible?" And sadly, "wringing money out of" usually involves "plastering ads all over."

    --
    "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
    1. Re:It's good to be a pessimist by superflyguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But they're not forcing ads on their users; only doing all they can to convince their users to accept ads themselves and force them on non-users. I still don't see any ads on livejournal. When I do, I'll take the archives that I save periodically with the scrapbook firefox extension and move somewhere else if they annoy me. But if I'm not forced to see ads, I don't care if others decide to see ads. As long as it remains voluntary, even to new users, it's not a problem.

    2. Re:It's good to be a pessimist by Sparhawk2k · · Score: 1

      Thank you! That's my thought exactly. I haven't seen any ads anyplace and don't expect to any time soon. I never understood what the big deal with giving people the option to see ads was. If I didn't have a paid account I'd love to have ads as a trade for more features. I'd do that on a lot of sites if given the chance... Though actually, I've been meaning to go track down an account with ads just out of curiousity to see how bad they are.

  3. When to introduce advertising by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many web site owners already know that it's usually considered bad practice to add advertising to a well established site. People who blog about blogging usually tell people to put adsense up right away to a new site rather than add it later. Regular visitors seem to take the later addition of advertising as a bit of an insult. But they're more inclined to accept the site with its advertising features present from the start. Any significantly intrusive changes to a site will cause problems. Even more so if it's purely done for profit.

  4. kdawson, not rdawson, is the knave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oops, I wrote rdawson instead of kdawson. my mistake.

  5. ...and? by NitsujTPU · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not like LiveJournal is strapping their users to chairs and tattooing advertisement on their foreheads. If you're that vehemently against this, you could

    1) Use facebook to social network
    2) Use blogger
    3) User the facebook notes feature to aggregate your blog in (if blogger is supported... if it isn't you could use the facebook API)

    Of course, facebook uses ads on their site...

    Also, it's not a step towards ads embedded in your LJ. If you want all of the features, you either pony up some cash or get ads embedded (I don't think that the "sponsored" level gets as much as the paid level).

    Who cares? Start a similar service. There's no patent preventing you from doing so to the best of my knowledge.

    1. Re:...and? by Aranwe+Haldaloke · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nevermind that to see the ads, you actually have to go and search them out, since the banners are in the community pages themselves, or you get them if you decide to use those newfangled features. It's all opt-in.

      There was also an uproar when they introduced Plus accounts, which were also introduced as opt-in, and have so far remained that way. I don't see anyone complaining about those now, and even though I have a few friends with Plus accounts I've yet to see a single ad from them.

    2. Re:...and? by RPoet · · Score: 1

      I'd like to add a an item to your list of suggestions:

      4) It's free software. Set up your own damn LJ (with blackjack, and hookers. In fact, forget the LJ!).

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    3. Re:...and? by B0red+At+W0rk · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that the code for LiveJournal is licensed under the GPL.

    4. Re:...and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Opt-in for existing users, opt-out for new users.

    5. Re:...and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A typically simplistic response by a substantially simple-minded human. But what else could one expect from a human? After all, humans are demonstrably the most stupid species in the Universe.

      Agree to ads on blogs and you'll find in the near future virtually everyone, save those decent people who are truly free of this commercialistic nonsense, will put ads in everything. Every service will have ads in it in the end. Then, after getting their nefarious way, those ads will increase to make the content of the site far less than the quantity of ads. Before you know it, life will be nothing but ads and an even more extreme form of commercialism or capitalism than has heretofore been the case.

      Humans are so predictable. Indeed, humans are unbelievably insane.

    6. Re:...and? by g-doo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who cares? Start a similar service. There's no patent preventing you from doing so to the best of my knowledge.

      Well, let's replace Blogger with the LiveJournal example. If you built up several years of posts and comments at Blogger, with years' worth of sites linking back to your own, wouldn't you be a bit hesitant to abruptly drop Blogger and essentially start over at another service?

    7. Re:...and? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      There was also an uproar when they introduced Plus accounts, which were also introduced as opt-in, and have so far remained that way.

      The accounts are opt-in, but seeing ads most certainly isn't: A free user (or non-LJ user) will see ads on the sponsored account, even though this user hasn't ever opted in. Only paid users don't ever see ads.

    8. Re:...and? by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

      1) Use facebook to social network

      LJ and Facebook are completely different sites. I don't use LJ to "social network", I use it as a diary that my friends can read. For that matter, I don't use Facebook to "social network", I use it to see what people from high school and college are up to now -- in other words, I'm on it for the profiles. I have no interest in blogging, or saying anything to the internet at large. I wish people would stop assuming that the only use for web services is whatever trendy marketing buzzword is being shoved down our throats this week.

      --
      Visit the
    9. Re:...and? by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Social networking isn't just a trendy marketing buzzword. Theorists are actually interested in models that are based on social networks, IE, the karate club graph, the Milgram experiment, and people looking at the graphs produced by facebook and other social networking sites.

      By setting up profiles that link you to your other friends, you are helping to produce such a graph, whether you like it or not. I used the term "social network" to capture the larger picture of what the site is and does, not to sound nifty by throwing out some marketing buzzwords.

      If all that you really want to do is run a blog, I suggest that you get WordPress, it's superior to LiveJournal for that function anyway. That would be why I specified the solution in the manner that I did. I also specified Facebook over running your own copy of LiveJournal because most of the value in the two sites, in my mind, is captured by the existing social network. You, however, may feel that a site with no existing users is commensurate.

    10. Re:...and? by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know that social networking is an actual field. I was objecting to your use of it as a verb. "Social networking" is a high-level description that ignores the fact that two services which feature it may not be interchangeable at all. Case in point -- many modern video games, as part of their multiplayer feature, allow you to label other users as friends, see when they're online, and send messages. Can I replace Facebook with Half-Life 2? Of course not. Nor can I replace Facebook with del.icio.us, or Livejournal with Facebook.

      Again, I don't want a blog because blogging software is primarily designed to help you (and others) display content to the net at large. LJ is designed to display information to a small group, and includes features like a friends page, which shows your friends' most recent posts, and per-user security levels. I took a brief look at the WordPress site and didn't see anything about a friends page, and the only post security feature seems to be password protection. For other people that might be fine, but in my particular case it's just not good enough.

      I guess my friends and I could all set up our own blogs and then have RSS feeds and the like, but it's much, much simpler to use one site where everything's nicely integrated. And since almost everyone I know has an LJ, there's really no other choice.

      --
      Visit the
    11. Re:...and? by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      But at that point you're using the social networking functionality of the site because you can jump to your friends page, and those friends pages of your friends, and so on and so forth, walking around the graph looking at the friends pages of your friends.

      Even if you didn't want it, it's there... any complete solution to the problem of duplicating LJ's functionality would require supplementing this functionality. That's all that I was saying.

  6. Adblock by Meneth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know, they could just install Adblock and forget about it.

    1. Re:Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Using Adblock is against LJ's TOS.

    2. Re:Adblock by RLiegh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...and they enforce this how, exactly?

    3. Re:Adblock by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      ADVERTISEMENTS AND PROMOTIONS

      You understand and agree that some or all of the Service may include advertisements and that these advertisements are necessary for LiveJournal to provide the Service. You also understand and agree that you will not obscure any advertisements from general view via HTML/CSS or any other means.


      I would say that means the people with live journal pages cant embed things to make the advertising go away. If you are reading a page they couldn't do anything about that.

      That being said, seeing ads is for suckers.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    4. Re:Adblock by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      Looking at the comment below, it looks like Adblock isn't against the ToS, since it doesn't use html or css to obscure the ads..

    5. Re:Adblock by robdavy · · Score: 1

      Except this article (if you'd have read it and the link), is about Sponsored Profiles and such - profiles you have to choose to visit. This is not about banner ads or Google ads or what-not...

    6. Re:Adblock by makomk · · Score: 1

      Yeah - IIRC they changed the TOS and got rid of the bit prohibiting users from using AdBlock after a load of people kicked up a fuss...

  7. Scandal! by RealGrouchy · · Score: 2, Funny

    My, goodness, this is an outrage!

    I will continue to...not...use...livejournal...

    - RG>

    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  8. Hmmmm.... by truthsearch · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's not like LiveJournal is strapping their users to chairs and tattooing advertisement on their foreheads.

    What's your email address? We'd like to discuss this idea with you further.

    Thanks.

    - SixApart

  9. Surprising by nbannerman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yep, adverts are going to kill LJ; just look at Myspace, they've got ads everywhere and no-one uses that site at all... oh, wait..

    1. Re:Surprising by RallyCheyenne · · Score: 1

      MySpace is different - you know you're going to see ads when you visit it. LJ had claimed over and over again that there would never be ads. The site probably won't die, but there's going to be a massive shift in their userbase if they go through with this.

    2. Re:Surprising by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting you should compare them to MySpace. When LJ started, it seemed to be full of emo teens. Since MySpace started, it seems like the signal to noise ratio of LJ has shot up...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Surprising by geek · · Score: 1

      I don't think any reasonable person thinks LJ would suddenly close shop from lack of users. I believe the argument to be that the quality will go down reducing it to the quality level of MySpace. These are subjective criteria with which to judge and compare so drawing a line claiming they are either right or wrong would be foolish.

      My personal opinion is that both sites are crap. While most people I know have a MySpace account, very few I know actually use it in any real manner.

      Both sites could go swirling down the bowl and I doubt anyone would shed a tear. Someone will pick up right where they left off so that all the little goth and emo kids can slit their metaphorical wrists together on the internet day after day.

    4. Re:Surprising by Belgand · · Score: 1

      When LJ started it was filled with University of Washington college students. I should know, I joined back in April of 2000 (user number 2008 for reference) when I was a college freshman myself (albeit at a different school). The only reason I even found the site was because there was a piece of software of up on Freshmeat called "Loser Jabber" which sounded interesting. Turns out it was the Linux client for LJ.

      I told some friends about the site and a few people moved there, but for a while it seemed pretty small and ignored. I basically ignored mine until I was home on a break and heard friends talking about their accounts. When I headed back I found that they'd turned me into an "early adopter" account and yeah, lots of teens were starting to fill up the service and it was going a bit downhill.

      The thing is, they kept the same stuff we'd always had. Early adopter accounts didn't get downgraded when they opened up the free/paid tiering and while free accounts have a few less features they've kept their promise that, at least for those of us who got there first, we've never had something taken away just to have it monetized.

      Since the buyout by Six Apart things have continued to get a bit worse, but honestly, the original staff seems to be of the opinion that while they might add in new stuff that you don't want, they're not ever taking away what you already had.

  10. Just goes to show... by Bieeanda · · Score: 1
    That a social contract is worth exactly as much as the paper it's printed on.

    As a user of Adblock Plus (mit Filterset.G!), I'm not really concerned about any advertisements that LJ puts out. As an occasional LJ user, I really have no problem going through my few posts, copying them to local storage and moving them to a new service in the event that it descends into the puddle of diarrhea that Myspace currently has a lock on.

  11. So what: Slashdot beat them to it! by gd23ka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Need I say more?

  12. Wait a minute.... by VTMarik · · Score: 1

    LiveJournal already has an option to put ads on your LJ, it's their Free+ Option that puts ads onto your journal and gives you more room and services (not as much as the paid accounts people but close) for your various thingies. If this is news than its very late.

    1. Re:Wait a minute.... by RallyCheyenne · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of LJ's Plus accounts (originally called Sponsored accounts), that see Google ads in return for a few extra features. This is something new and completely different - sponsored communities and content for companies, music artists and movies to promote themselves - just like what MySpace has. In return for having to put up with these, LJ users get to enter contests to win things. How exciting and gratifying! Not.

    2. Re:Wait a minute.... by VTMarik · · Score: 1

      Wow yeah, what a burden. Ads and corporate content, on the internet no less. *gasp* Is there no place sacred anymore? And MySpace parallels, oh no. That means there'll be emo kids and people who can't spell joining with the LJ-Elite. What will we ever do? To quote Ahhnold, "Stop whining!"

    3. Re:Wait a minute.... by RallyCheyenne · · Score: 1

      'Is there no place sacred anymore?' That's exactly what LiveJournal users are asking. LJ used to be a haven from ads.

  13. "Social contract" by Da3vid · · Score: 1

    If you checked the internet archive link for LJ's social contract... don't they have any responsibility for something like that? Quoted: "we promise to never offer advertising space in our service or on our pages." They may not have a legal responsibility, but what about a moral responsibility? I dream of a world where people are held accountable for the things they say.

    1. Re:"Social contract" by joe+155 · · Score: 1

      so you think people should be able to permantently bind themselves and a company to one course of action eternally and that that is a sign of someone with moral responsibility? Can people not change their mind>

      I think that this would be different if MS suddenly decided to GPL windows because now they think freedom and open source is important. Similarly if the RIAA continued to force people out to pay up on dubious claims based on legal might... I wonder if you would say that they have "a moral responsibility" to continue?

      People change their minds, sometimes it's for the best, others it's not... it's not a bad thing

      --
      *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    2. Re:"Social contract" by Da3vid · · Score: 1

      Maybe my point is that LJ shouldn't have been so shortsighted when they wrote they'd never have ads ever anywhere.

    3. Re:"Social contract" by vertinox · · Score: 0

      People change their minds, sometimes it's for the best, others it's not... it's not a bad thing

      So if I decide to change my mind on the practice of "eating of small children" it isn't a bad thing?

      But I think the point of the matter was that these people said they would not change their minds. Which is still lying.

      If they had said... Right now we aren't going to use ads, but later we may do so then they broke no promise.

      And yes... When you break a promise, it is a bad thing.

      Unless of course that promise was to eat as many small children you could get your hands on.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    4. Re:"Social contract" by -kertrats- · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, the business world, that pinnacle of morality. captcha: illusion

      --
      The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
    5. Re:"Social contract" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if your wife changes her mind about that promise of fidelity, you won't be upset?

    6. Re:"Social contract" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting to see that the change that changed these promises is publically-accessible. What's also interesting is that the person who made that commit is, so it appears, one of the many former LiveJournal staff that jumped ship after the Six Apart sellout due to exactly this kind of bullshit. From Brad Fitzpatrick's recent reactions to this kind of announcement, it wouldn't surprise me if he was to make some kind of grand exit in the near future, especially given that he's recently been making a big deal about getting other people's GPL-licenced contributions into the ex-Danga now-6A-run open source projects to ensure that 6A can't relicence them.

  14. introduced today, but announced 6 months ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the entry for yourself

    http://community.livejournal.com/lj_biz/236361.htm l

    In summary, they are adding a new account level for people who want to see ads to "buy" extra features.

    Your friend's list won't have ads, and people who stay "free" or "paid" won't have ads on their own pages. If you go to someone's site who has enabled advertisements in exchange for extra features, "free" users will see ads, but "paid" users will not see ads anywhere.

    LJ has historically been above the ghetto filth of xanga and now myspace... not for much longer...

    1. Re:introduced today, but announced 6 months ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, lots of people here aren't reading the details. The ability to add ads to your own journal in exchange for a few extra features has been around for a while.

      What's new is that they are allowing corporations to start "sponsored" communities. The main questions about this are:

      --how will users tell the non-user-created content apart?
      --what influence will these new corporate partners have over the rest of the site?
      --how will users' privacy be protected?

  15. OMG by doofusclam · · Score: 1

    I read the linked announcement thread and browsed through the replies. I don't think i've ever seen such a bunch of drama queens since last time I got lost in Blackpool with a cargo of wigs. It's like all their collective dogs got shot.'Corporate bullshit' was an oft used phrase. In which case what are they doing putting all their boring crap on some corporate site? Go get some parchment and head for the hills instead folks!

    1. Re:OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think i've ever seen such a bunch of drama queens

      Did you expect more out of a bunch of fags?

    2. Re:OMG by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I don't think i've ever seen such a bunch of drama queens since last time I got lost in Blackpool with a cargo of wigs.

      Are you new here?

      (Slashdot far outdoes LiveJournal in terms of complaining about what company X has done.)

  16. LJ isn't for advertising. by mattpointblank · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a long-term user of Livejournal and the whole thing, on paper at least, reads pretty badly. Little company with nice OSS policies get bought by a bigger group, suddenly start introducing ads on the site (I don't care if they're only viewed by people who opt-in, they're still there) and introducing crap like corporate sponsoring, like pages for movies where you can watch trailers. I know sites like YouTube and Myspace do all the corporate tie-in crap, with smarter companies doing the whole viral marketing method to take advantage, but those sites are both new and had ads from the start. LJ is a little more pure, and since it's founded around people posting their lives and emotions and feelings, it cheapens the overall site experience when stuff like this is added in a way that's not the same as Myspace having ads. When half the members of your site are just random guys looking to score, it doesn't have the same impact when everyone is advertising.

    1. Re:LJ isn't for advertising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet I click on your homepage and what do I spy at the top? Why, it's a banner, an advertisement banner that I am assuming you get paid for when someone clicks on it. So why is it ok for you to advertise but not OK for LJ to advertise? You, like most of slashdot, strike me as being a bit hypocritical. Unless you are a paid account holder, LJ OWES you nothing. They gave away a service for free, well bully for them, but you know someone has to pay to maintain those servers and whatnot. And if they can make some money, good for them. Do people at work criticize you for making money? Or maybe they are mad because you make more money now then when you started.
      The earth doesn't exist solely to please you, or anyone else on this site. I know that comes as a shock to some, but it is the truth.

    2. Re:LJ isn't for advertising. by mattpointblank · · Score: 1

      With regards to my site:

      a) I see nothing from the ads, they pay our hosting. We make no profit, we don't pay staff to write.
      b) Our ads are only by record labels whose bands we feature, the point being that our audience is likely to care about the records being advertised. I couldn't care any less about Warner Bros latest movie when I'm trying to read my friend's blog, for example.
      c) We've had ads for quite a while now and weren't bought out by a larger company to implement them (our hosting needs just became higher).

      I agree, they owe me nothing. My point was merely that the content of the site is a little more sensitive, so people feel more harshly about it when they see it taken over with new ads/"sponsorship" than they would at Myspace, for example.

  17. Two parts to ads by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I see two parts to the ads: sponsored communities and sponsored features.

    The sponsored community part I don't see a problem with the ads in. Those would be communities created by a company, and the company gets to put their ads in the community. The company can already do that by an ad in a floating entry at the top of the community, all this is doing is making it official and giving LJ a cut. And it's their community in a sense, if they want ads in it it's them paying the bills. If users find the ads too obtrusive they'll avoid that community and that company and the company'll drop the community as a waste of money.

    The sponsored features part I'll reserve judgement on for the moment. The statement seems to imply the ads will be on pages related to features not currently part of LJ's feature set and that'd be too expensive to offer at all without the ads. I want to see how they actually intend to implement it, because it could vary from quite acceptable to quite annoying depending on implementation.

    Nowhere in LJ's announcement do I see any plans for ads popping up in ordinary user journals for paying subscribers.

    1. Re:Two parts to ads by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      Sponsored communities are bad because they look just like ordinary communties until you go look at them. I didn't pay to look at advertising. If someone on my friends page links to the stupid sponsored community, I'll end up going there and looking at the advertising. I pay LJ. I pay cold hard cash. I have a lot of data on their site. I have a big investment in them. It really annoys me that now there will be advertising there I can stumble across. I would never have started a blog on a site with advertising, I would've self-hosted it or something.

      Their snarky "Well, you can just ignore it if you don't like it." is just ridiculous. I don't want to have to ignore it. I can ignore all the spam in my inbox to, but that doesn't mean its OK.

    2. Re:Two parts to ads by Piazzola · · Score: 1

      The problem with the sponsored communities is that you wind up with potential conflicts. For example, what happens to a LiveJournal community based around fanworks? Can the corporate sponsor pressure LiveJournal's staff to have the fan community banned? What about an anti-[fill in the company] community? If I start a "We Hate Walmart" community, can Walmart make LJ ban me? These are the sorts of concerns people are having about sponsored communities.

      Also, there are concerns about not being able to distinguish between a sponsored community and a user-created community, and having sponsored communities included in searches with no way to filter them out. However, the possibility of users getting shafted by sponsors holding the LJ staff's reins is probably the most serious concern -- one that, if no addressed, will probably lose LiveJournal a ton of support.

    3. Re:Two parts to ads by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      The sponsored community part I don't see a problem with the ads in. Those would be communities created by a company, and the company gets to put their ads in the community. The company can already do that by an ad in a floating entry at the top of the community, all this is doing is making it official and giving LJ a cut.

      Actually, that might be against the TOS:

      You agree to NOT use the Service to: Engage in commercial activities within LiveJournal or on behalf of LiveJournal without prior approval. This includes, but is not limited to, the following activities: Displaying a banner that is designed to profit you or any other business or organization; and Displaying banners for services that provide cash or cash-equivalent prizes to users in exchange for hyperlinks to their web sites.

      Also, the problem is not just the communities themselves, but that they are promoted on the main site, or (apparentely) given priority on searches.

      Then there are other issues, like what happens if people post "I saw this movie and it was shit" to that community?

      They have at least said that Paid users won't see sponsored communities being promoted, so I'm fine with that.

    4. Re:Two parts to ads by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      I'm presuming that sponsored communities won't have the same TOS as paid individual users. And as far as I can tell, if you're logged in as a paid user you do not get the sponsored-community promo on the main page or search results. Those are strictly shown to free users.

    5. Re:Two parts to ads by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I'm presuming that sponsored communities won't have the same TOS as paid individual users.

      Well sponsored communities will be allowed under the current TOS, as it's with "prior approval". But I presumed you were referring to doing it via normal communities, by saying it can already be done.

      And as far as I can tell, if you're logged in as a paid user you do not get the sponsored-community promo on the main page or search results. Those are strictly shown to free users.

      Yes, that's what I said.

  18. Always Read the TOS! by sitekeeper · · Score: 1
    While I agree this is not good, it is in the Terms of Service everyone agreed to!

    ADVERTISEMENTS AND PROMOTIONS

    LiveJournal.com has decided to remove all banner advertisements and promotions on LiveJournal.com journals. However, LiveJournal.com reserves the right to run advertisements and promotions on the LiveJournal.com service in the future. By using LiveJournal.com, you agree that LiveJournal.com has the right to run such advertisements and promotions with or without prior notice, and without recompense to you or any other user. The manner, mode and extent of advertising by LiveJournal.com on your journal are subject to change. You agree that LiveJournal.com shall not be responsible or liable for any loss or damage of any sort incurred as the result of any such dealings or as the result of the presence of such advertisers on the Service.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20040614203940/www.live journal.com/legal/tos.html

    Sitekeeper

    1. Re:Always Read the TOS! by bakawally · · Score: 1

      I made my LJ in 2001. I didn't agree to that.

    2. Re:Always Read the TOS! by balloonpup · · Score: 1

      Actually, you did. The first entry in the Wayback Machine for the TOS page in 2001 (Jan. 18th to be exact) includes that very text. See http://web.archive.org/web/20010126132600/www.live journal.com/legal/tos.bml.

      --
      I sing the doggie electric!
    3. Re:Always Read the TOS! by ElectricOkra · · Score: 1

      I've been an LJ user since 2000 and I can guarantee you I didn't agree to anything like that. I don't care what the Wayback Machine says about Jan 18, 2001.

      I've been a paid user for 5yrs. The whole reason I got sucked into this community was because of their stance against ads and sponsers and anyone doing anything to control them. At the time, it was Brad and a few others struggling with servers and outages and there were less than 50,000 of us and it felt like a real community.

      Now it's over 10 million and it's just another Internet buy-out shell. My paid user status is up in December and I am not renewing. Before I felt like I was supporting a project. Now my money would just go to support a product.

      That may sound like I'm being dramatic, but that's how this whole Six-Apart shadow has made me (and thousands of other people who were there for the beginning) feel.

      --
      Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from Mediocre Minds - A. Einstein
    4. Re:Always Read the TOS! by balloonpup · · Score: 1

      Wow, it's amazing to find someone that actually read the TOS when they signed up. It does seem like it was something added after you joined, though -- nothing before my link even indicates a TOS of that sort that I can see. W

      I've been a paid member for quite some time (though not as long as you -- I started at LJ in 2002) myself, and I agree that it is unfortunate that they are going down this road. Given what I saw back in 2000 (I had a couple friends on the service back then), it was a community like you say. It had a sort of home-y feel to it. By the time I joined up, however, it did seem more like a business (indeed, the paid account wasn't done, in my case, to support the developers, it was indeed for greater functionality in their 'product'). Do you happen to know what caused that initial shift? I'm asking as I wasn't really 'into' it at that point, beyond knowing what my friends were doing.

      This whole thing with Six Apart had me figuring they'd do such a thing soon enough, if not roll it all into their other service. Heck, when I heard about it, the first thing I did was back up my own entries in preparation for self-hosting. I'm surprised it took this long, really. It's rather unfortunate that they're going down this road, though.

      As to being dramatic, well, isn't that the whole purpose of LJ in the first place? ;)

      --
      I sing the doggie electric!
    5. Re:Always Read the TOS! by ElectricOkra · · Score: 1

      You should read insomnia's journal entry on what Six Apart thinks of LiveJournal... this is what really tipped the tide for me...

      When I started with LJ, there wasn't a great deal of teenage drama. In fact, I'd say that 90% of the users were in their mid-to-late twenties... Now Six-Apart is telling me that I'm a teenager to be exploited...

      Brad had said several times that the small percentage of paid users and permanent accounts were plenty to cover their costs and pay their salaries and have a little left over - that they weren't interested in 'cashing in'. Six Apart changed that idea very quickly.

      One thing to keep in mind - Six Apart has never seen a profit. They are a classic dotcom boom business. They have 70+ people working for them and they buy up little organizations left and right and they have never actually made a penny. LJ's business model was working. It was profitable. Now SA comes in and they have to pay for 'buying' LJ, so hello ads. I'm not going to pay for someone else's mistake. I don't care that my $25.99 would keep me from seeing ads. I'm very comfortable with my principles here.

      --
      Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from Mediocre Minds - A. Einstein
    6. Re:Always Read the TOS! by balloonpup · · Score: 1

      Mmm. So, they bought the company without knowing anything about its subscriber base, and never bothered to learn after the fact. Nice. I guess my decision to back up was a good one. Businesses without a profit are never good for longevitiy.

      Oh well, all things change in time, and I suppose I can always get a DeadJournal...

      --
      I sing the doggie electric!
  19. To give you an idea of why lj users are upset by acherusia · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'll admit I'm irritated at this. Frankly, more irritated than the news itself deserves. The features themselves are (both) things that could be nice, but both have the potential to mostly just irritate me. And judging by lj's recent history, I judge the latter more likely than the former.

    Ever since Six Apart bought lj, they've been adding features, and shoving them down the throats of the users without paying much attention to their complaints. Or any. There was the Sponsored+ account (which, incidentally, displays ads to anyone who visits who isn't a paid user, not just people who also have Sponsored+ accounts. This seems to be a fairly common misapprehension in the comments.) There was a new userinfo, that, to give them their due, they did scrap when out of the thousand+ complaints I saw, there were two people who liked it. Their standard implementation of new features nowadays seems to be to force people to opt out, which irritates me when I come to my lj and realize that I need to remove the new bar at the top of my layout/change the new bar on the comment page back to my old bar/whatever. And generally, their response to people saying "I don't like this!" is "But, but it's cool! Look at the shiny and profitable^W^W thing we made for you! Don't you like it? D: D:" And the tone of their response irritates me as much or more as their original announcement. Damnit, if you're going to start shoving new and exotic ways of you making a buck down my throat, at least have the decency not to act like you think you're doing me a favor.

    I have a lot of friends on lj. I'm moderately active in several fandoms, and for years, lj's been the place for people writing fanfic to gather. And I'm seeing more people beginning to talk about moving to greatestjournal, or deadjournal, or journalfen, that a year ago would never have even thought about it. And that makes me sad, frankly. If fandom starts dispersing across all the lj clones because lj decides to turn itself into a myspace clone, I'm going to have to go to all the trouble of tracking people across multiple sites, rather than just the one today. And I don't want to have to do that.

    1. Re:To give you an idea of why lj users are upset by SPQR_Julian · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I like LiveJournal because it's NOT a MySpace clone. And in my opinion, it has a long way to go before it gets there. Not that that's stopping SixApart from trying. Oh well. *goes back to his paid account and makes faces at all the people who see ads*

    2. Re:To give you an idea of why lj users are upset by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      And what's the problem with free users seeing ads on Sponsored+ journals? From a practical standpoint, that's the only way to make Sponsored+ work. From a principles perspective, it's reasonable. A free user (Sponsored+ or not) isn't paying for their access in money. Having to see ads in journals of people who've opted to allow them doesn't seem unreasonable to me, it's the trade-off you make for having a journal without having to pay money. If you don't want to see those ads, write LJ a check for a paid account. Otherwise, you'll have to live with what other people have decided to allow on their journals.

      Now, you could make an argument that Sponsored+ accounts shouldn't see ads. That's got a stronger basis, since Sponsored+ accounts are already providing revenue to LJ by the ads hosted in their journals. But again, that'd make the whole Sponsored+ thing useless to LJ since everyone'd just get a Sponsored+ account and not have to watch ads.

    3. Re:To give you an idea of why lj users are upset by acherusia · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I wasn't clear with that. I don't have a problem with it. I was just seeing a lot of comments that implied that they thought only people who opted in to see advertising (Sponsored+) would see advertising, and I wanted to correct that impression. Especially since a number of people have had free journals since well before they put in advertising, when lj was still promising no ads whatsoever, and thus in no sense ever agreed to see advertising.

    4. Re:To give you an idea of why lj users are upset by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      It's not necessarily a problem, but I disliked the way it was implied that free users wouldn't see adverts, and the only people seeing ads are those who want to, and opt into the system. See the original post at http://community.livejournal.com/lj_biz/236361.htm l . Although the details of the post point out that free users will see ads, the table earlier claimed they wouldn't, and the general tone of the post was "it's okay to let people see ads if they want to". Also "Well, we're not forcing it on users. It's purely a new option that users can enable if they want, so we don't feel it's that evil."

      However, in later announcements they appeared to back-peddle, admitting that free users now see ads, and trying to forget that they were ever against ads in the first place...

  20. over reacting... by gsn · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I'm no fan of LJ but really RTFA once in a blue moon...


    Both of them are completely optional. You don't have to use sponsored features, and you don't have to join sponsored communities. We think they're going to be worth it for you guys -- I personally can't wait for the SMS stuff, especially since we've had people asking for it for literally years. But if you don't want to see it, you don't have to.

    We want to give you guys options. One of those options is more features; one of them is the choice of seeing whether or not you want to listen to what companies have to say and offer about their products. But it's your choice -- you can also choose to completely ignore it if you want.


    The only time you see sponsorship information if you are a paid user is on the sponsored community/features pager - neither of which you have to use. There are always going to be problems with viral marketing - atleast here you will be able to see clearly which communities are sponsored and which are not. There will doubtless still be viral marketing with comapnies making communities that look like they are grassroots stuff but just like lonelygirl the lesson is learn to use discretion. Or don't join them at all.
    --
    Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
  21. whatever by Peganthyrus · · Score: 2, Informative
    paid users won't see sponsored stuff -- ignore the previous post. paid users won't ever see ads. that's why you paid, and we're not in the business of pissing off paid users. (just in the business of writing misleading posts to paid users, apparently... *sigh*)


    -Brad, creator of LJ, in what is now the top post on lj_biz, citing miscommunication between coding and advertising folks.
    --
    egypt urnash minimal art.
    1. Re:whatever by Yusaku+Godai · · Score: 1

      That's partly why I, and many of my peers, still stick with Livejournal. No matter how much more control is gained over there by marketdroids, the people who originally made LJ, and continue to make it work, actually in general seem to be of the "do no evil" philosophy (LJA excluded--they suck, hard) and continue to make most of LJ open source, etc, etc. In other words, the people who have direct control over the situation--the people who make the site work in the first place--aren't out to get anyone.

  22. The problem isn't the ads, per se. by seebs · · Score: 1

    It's the doublespeak ("these aren't ads, even though you send email to lj_ads to buy them" and "these are not advertisements"). And, perhaps most importantly, the silent alteration of a user agreement. A company that makes a promise and then breaks it is not a trustworthy company.

    We know, now, that they will change their minds and break promises if they feel the "need", defined very loosely. You cannot rely on a statement that LJ will do, or not do, a given thing; even if it's in writing, they can just delete the page later and say "we changed our minds". And they have done so, so this is no longer hypothetical.

    Disappointing.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  23. OLD news... by NeoOokami · · Score: 1

    "Breaking news! LiveJournal will show you ads if you want them to - and give you a few extra features in exchange. More on this and spontaneous combustion at 11." This was a big hubub in LJ lang months ago. The short and sweet of it is that unless you browse specifically to someone's journal who OPTED into ads - you won't be seeing them. It's that simple. People have to opt into the sponsored content. If you don't want them you won't be seeing them on your journal or friend's list - it's that simple. I really can't see what the big deal is.

    1. Re:OLD news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh no this is about allowing corporations and such to create journals. RTFA next time before you speak.

    2. Re:OLD news... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      The short and sweet of it is that unless you browse specifically to someone's journal who OPTED into ads - you won't be seeing them.

      I believe that this also means they appear if you go to read/post comments on someone's journal - so yes, if someone else opts-in, free users will see the ads.

      I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this system, but it's ridiculous that people keep claiming that seeing ads is "opt in".

  24. "Social Contract" has become "Guiding Principles" by Stave177 · · Score: 1

    See here: http://www.livejournal.com/legal/principles.bml

    Notice how "Stay Advertisement Free... we promise to never offer advertising space in our service or on our pages..." changed to the much more formal and significantly less friendly "Avoid Spam... when you sign up for the Service, we understand that to mean you want to communicate with us and hear from us about our products and services..."

    Slippery slope indeed. Livejournal, take a look back up that slope to where you started. It's a nice place up there.

  25. What "agreement"? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    This is the thing I don't understand here. The Slashdot write-up says:

    These events raise prickly issue of user rights on such websites, and the validity of "user contracts" that can be changed at will by the provider with no subsequent compensation to affected users.

    A contract, fundamentally, is a two-sided deal. There must be something in for both parties, or there is no contract. Any promise made to you by a business that has nothing in it for them is not a promise you should ever trust.

    I will never understand why so many people continue to believe that because a web site happens to offer a particular facility for free at some point, they are permanently entitled to have the same people provide the same service, at the same non-cost, in perpetuity. If the site is charging for the service, and then tries to change the deal, well that's a whole different game. But for the vast majority of these social networking sites, I'd guess that few or none of their users are paying customers.

    Some of them also claim the rights to anything you post on their systems. Slashdot explicitly doesn't ("Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2006 OSTG.") which is why I don't mind posting somewhat in-depth stuff here. But posting a first take of a home-made movie that might be worth something on $VIDEO_SITE without reading the small print is just naive, as is posting your whole life story in any form where you can be identified on any public web site (whether or not that site actually makes your posts available to the entire public at that time), and so on.

    Personally, I do also have a LJ account. I mostly use it as a way to view friends-locked posts by my real-life friends, and occasionally post throw-away comments that I don't care about. But after experiencing LJ's level of integrity (or complete lack thereof, as it happens) in an earlier incident before I had the account (someone was blatantly and hurtfully defaming me and LJ staff turned a blind eye even when the specific posts were identified) I would never trust them with any content of any value to me. If they went away tomorrow, I certainly wouldn't care, and if they started splashing ads all over their pages, I would either not care or not use them any more. If you can't walk away from any social networking site you're using for free just as fast, you're a fool.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:What "agreement"? by seebs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The agreement where, when you sign up, they tell you what their service is, and what their terms are, and post things like a "social contract" saying "WE WILL NEVER HAVE ADS".

      It's not that they just by COINCIDENCE didn't have ads. It's that they said, in writing, "we will never, ever, have ads".

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    2. Re:What "agreement"? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      It's not that they just by COINCIDENCE didn't have ads. It's that they said, in writing, "we will never, ever, have ads".

      Which is a promise worth about the paper it's printed on if you're not paying (or otherwise compensating them) for their service. That's exactly my point. You're not dealing with a person who has a conscience, subscribes to personal ethics, or lives by a code of honour. You're dealing with a business, whose primary job is to make money, and which is probably under no legal obligation to any users who aren't compensating the business for the service it's providing, regardless of any "social contract" they have. (How is it that people jump up and down around here when businesses use dubious pseudo-legalese in their writing, but no-one objects to nonsense terms like this?)

      Anyway, the more interesting question, IMHO, is whether being granted the necessary rights to use someone's content on an ad-driven site constitutes consideration. I'll leave that one to the lawyers to resolve, but you could certainly make an argument that if they accepted the content with the "no ads" statement in place and claimed whatever rights they did to use it on their site, then that's a two-sided deal as long as they're using the content. That would presumably make using the content in violation of the original agreement an infringement of copyright.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:What "agreement"? by acherusia · · Score: 1

      Except lj, in my experience, has always had an extraordinary number of people with paid accounts. I used to have a paid account (that I let expire, and haven't bothered renewing at the rate they're irritating me). I'd estimate half of the people I talk to on lj have paid accounts. I watch a very large roleplay where almost every single player has at least one paid account, and some have up to six paid account, because they're playing just that many characters. (Yes, granted, they're almost certainly insane. But hey, they write well.) And the paid account users are for the most part more pissed off than the free users. No, they don't see ads when they're logged in (well, except for the sponsored communities on the front page. Which even I think they're lame for complaining about.)

      And to a lot of paid users, well. They aren't always paid users. Their account runs out when they're broke, they have a spare free account for their writing/art/roleplaying/pretending to be half the Harry Potter fandom, whatever. But they still paying lj and don't particularly want to be bombarded with ads by lj when they use a different account.

    4. Re:What "agreement"? by skyknytnowhere · · Score: 1

      Well, I think a huge part of the issue is that a lot of us did, and continue to, pay for the site in a very real way. Their entire business model up until being bought by 6A was having people pay them money in return for better service on the site, and they were paid money based on their original social contract.

      I will go so far as to say that I wouldn't have bought my account if they hadn't committed themselves to never showing ads on the site. I was supporting the philosophy as much as I was getting more userpics.

    5. Re:What "agreement"? by seebs · · Score: 1

      It may not be legally binding, but there do exist companies which keep promises even when a court couldn't hold them to those promises.

      LJ is now known to be a company you should not trust with anything you don't feel you could cost-effectively litigate and win. You cannot rely on them to keep promises. If they decide to sell a book with your blog entries in it, the question is not "does their policy allow this", but "if they change their policy to allow this, do I feel I could afford the necessary litigation, and that I would win it".

      You're quite right that the agreement is almost certainly ineffectual. That we have to ask whether or not it's enforceable is why people should not trust LJ.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  26. It's corporate now, there's not much to do... by umbra_dweller · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know Six Apart is a corporate entity, and I don't expect them to engage in any non-profit behavior, so I'm not too terribly distraught by these changes - I knew this kind of thing was coming after the sale. However the dedicated LJ users started when it was just a fun user-supported community - the free users were supported by the paid user class, and both benefitted. I think the paid users have lots of reason to complain, although if they had read the old TOS it mentioned that although the site was ad-free they reserved the right to introduce ads in the future, which is now. The central problem is that the community became an entirely different entity once it was sold, and people are having a hard time realizing the hard reality of that.

    I think people are angry for the same reason that others are angry at the opening up of facebook. Exclusivity is an important part of any community, even if it's not based on much in particular. There is no reason to introduce this change except that Livejournal wants to both make its free users more valuable by tacking advertising dollars to their activity, and expand their user base to the mainstream social networking/blogger who already uses ad-supported services and doesn't mind them, just as Bradfitz mentions in HIS ljbiz posting discussing the introduction of the ad-supported class. This is a culture clash with established LJ users who joined as an ad-free alternative, and if successful will bring in a flood of people with fundementally different ideas about what an olnine community should be. Again, this is not bad behavior for a corportate entity, it's not personal, it's just business.

    The kind of community that these people are looking for can only exist as a non-profit community supported model, which it was but is no longer. But as I mentioned before, that was dead once it was bought by Six Apart.

    All that can be done in a situation like this is, if you care enough, really care enough, then you have to go out and look for communities, or make your own community, that is based on a user-supported model. It's just sad that in this day and age even the most well intentioned non-profit projects fold, because once thousands of people gather together, they are a prime target for advertisers, and as the workload of managing such a creation grows on a founder like brad Fitzpatrick, they can only hold out on offers of money and an easing of pressure for so long, unless they constrain the community size with something like the invitation feature, which they did years ago and was probably the best move in preserving the nature of the community.

    I think it's really a go or stay situation. Maybe if enough people complain they might change the nature of the advertising, but it itcan't be reverted to its pre-corportate days by any amount of protest.

  27. Refund by D14BL0 · · Score: 0

    I'll demand a refund if they pull this crap. I'm not paying them to load my face with advertisements.

  28. Brad Fitzpatrick's Damage Control LJ Entry by Randwulf · · Score: 1

    Brad posted an entry called "Sponsored Confusion" to explain things and unruffle feathers: http://community.livejournal.com/lj_biz/237699.htm l

  29. LJ copyright? by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 1

    Doesn't LJ's terms of use indicate you've already signed your copyright over to them?

  30. Much ado about little by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

    At various times, I have had a free LJ account, a paid account, and now a Plus account. The paid one gave me no advantage over free, so no surprise I stopped paying for it.

    I and most of my 15 or so LJ friends have moved to the "Plus" account with paid ads inserted into our journals. We like the enhanced features.

    Most importantly, we have all gotten so used to the adsense model and similar advertising placement that we simply don't "see" the ads any more. Ignoring the LJ ads is no harder than ignoring any other ad on any other site.

    We just don't see the ads.

    --
    Sig for hire.
  31. Lies, damned lies, and free web hosts by BillX · · Score: 1

    So, wait, a free content-hosting company is starting to act like a free web host (1999)? The shock!

    --
    Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  32. No. by superflyguy · · Score: 1

    The author retains all patent, trademark, and copyright to all Content posted within available fields You license the right to publish your copyrighted material, but you don't sign the copyright over.