Slashdot Mirror
Mass Deletion Leads To LiveJournal Revolt
Green Monkey writes "LiveJournal has been suspending accounts suspected of promoting incest — except that many of them were communities for survivors of abuse and people discussing Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita. Even after being informed of the problem, LiveJournal apparently refuses to reinstate the banned accounts. LiveJournal's official news blog has filled up with hundreds of complaints protesting the decision, so we could have another Digg-style user rebellion brewing." Update: 05/31 11:50 GMT by KD : strredwolf writes to let us know that in their offical blog LiveJournal admits to botching the suspension, saying "We made a mistake and now we are going to try to fix it."
I've been watching this since it started, and what continually amazes me is how poorly livejournal is handling this. Over 24 hours into this, there is no announcement. Nothing reassuring users that their journal won't be next. Nothing apologizing for wiping out the incest survivor's livejournal in their witchhunt. Not even something saying "This is business, deal." The only news livejournallers have heard from livejournal came from an outside news source.
Forget the deletions. People were upset, but would have forgotten it quickly if livejournal had just said "We purged some pedophile rings, but some other stuff may have gotten caught in it. If there are any livejournals purged that were genuinely innocent, tell us." People would've bitched, would have said the sky was falling down, that Livejournal had gone down the tubes since Six Apart bought them, but there wouldn't have been this sort of mass hysteria.
Now, I'm anticipating the next great fandom migration will be happening a few years sooner than otherwise, and this makes me grumpy, because migrations are a pain in the ass. And it wouldn't be happening any time soon if Livejournal weren't currently doing their level best to make fandom - a group of people who in my experience pay a great deal of money for their playspace - feel unwelcome.
This kind of response -- "If you don't like what Company X is doing, do it yourself" -- comes up every time any kind of corporate misbehavior is discussed, and it seems to me that the people who say it don't understand the concept of "middle ground." Look, I like LJ. It's a good service for a good price. I don't have any particular desire to set up my own blog; I'd rather use theirs, and I'm willing to pay for it. So, as a paying customer, it's my hope that when they do something I don't like, I can persuade them to change their ways by complaining about it.
If every single person who was dissatisfied by every single thing every single company did just went off and did their own thing, let's face it, the economy would fall apart. Just as the "four boxes" should carefully be used in the proper order when trying to change the government -- jump ahead from soap to ammo, and you'll quickly find yourself alone and in a heap of trouble -- so there is a reasonable continuum of customer response to corporate action, from "enthusiastic recommendation" on one extreme to "boycott" on the other. And there's a whole lot in between.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
It never ceases to amaze me how we remain bound by real-world limitation, which we carry into the virtual world of the Internet as metaphors. Although useful to make the experience digestable, it is sometimes a hindrance, and not really necessary.
On the Internet, you can have as many copies of your house as you like. This will make it a lot harder for any mayor to burn it down. And your connectivity to your friends is not limited by location, but by protocol. If you stop using a proprietary site-specific protocol to communicate with your friends, and use an open one instead, it doesn't matter where your friends are located.
Infrastructure as you call it, which is single-site only, is not really Internet Infrastructure. It's proprietary infrastructure.
Of course it isn't in the interest of blog-hosting sites to facilitate blog-site interoperability, so such an invention has to come from other parties.
I used Usenet a lot in the past, and I'm sad to admit that I don't go there much these days, although I know the groups I participated in still thrive and have strong communities. However, I have found a few webbased boards for some topics that interest me. Boards that are very useful. Also some wikis.
However, an unpleasant experience in the past caused me to think about this issue. Let me explain the experience first. I visited often a place for Danish skeptics, skeptica.dk. At one point a third interested party offered the site to host a forum for the site. However, after a while, the third party, being part of a movement that suddenly found themselves under the conspicous eyes of skepticism, and received a lot of flak on the forum, their motivation being questioned etc. Naturally, one day the forum owner shut down the forum. Poof - gone. All the other relevant debate was suddenly inaccessible.
This could never have happened with Usenet. Why? Because of the distributed nature of Usenet. This is the LOCKSS project principle at work again. Lots Of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe.
We need two things:
1) A way to distribute blog hosting, so that a blog can't be shut down by a strike against a single hosting service. I don't have a solution at hand for that.
2) A way to distribute blog and web forum comments, so that the comments are distributed in a shared framework for all types of forums. I believe the existing and proven Usenet technology is easily adapted for this purpose, although RSS might also play a role. For example, a new hierarchy, similar to the IANA OID hierarchy, or the Java package hierarchy, using DNS names at the top level, could be used. This way, suppose I have myblog, and you have yourblog. So you post an entry about Java and OOP on your blog: it ends up in a newsgroup, blog.your.org.java, and perhaps you even tag it with the OOP category, so it also is crossposted to blog.your.org.oop.
I post a response on my blog: blog.my.org.programming (because I lump it all into one category), and also crosspost to your blog newsgroups. In addition, I call it to attention to the existing Usenet community by crossposting to usenet.comp.lang.java.misc.
Of course, there has to be some additions to make this work. Perhaps a way to subscribe to your blog newsfeed. Authentication and authorization. Anonymity/Pseudonymity. Etc.
I believe this could bring the known synergy effect from Usenet back into play by making a new unified, but distributed, framework for Internet-based discussion. A kind of Babel-tower project, I suppose. Discussion would again be uniformly searchable (presuming Google would carry all the groups), and foremost: a discussion would not be orphaned when the forum goes down. I visited a great Joomla forum daily until recently, but it went down for maintenance and hasn't been up for a few weeks due to problems. Terrible. What if slashdot.org went down?
Again, as for-profit hosting services will not win much - if anything - from this an approach, they will have to be forced to use it by user demand.
Any takers? This idea is free for anyone to use. But please only one project - having different models would defeat the entire purpose.
-Lasse Hillerøe Petersen
Most people would not object to two people with a genetic disability falling in love, etc. The objection - the one you might make if you believe you have the right to tell two informed, consenting adults what to do, that is - is centered around breeding. Breeding can be controlled. The problem for society is those people on the left side of the gaussian who fail to exert such control... still, if we're not going to tell people with congenital defects they can't have relationships, it pretty much torpedos the rational arguments against incest and turns them into classed prejudice instead of reason.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Well, in several cultures, it was (and still is) acceptable to marry within the family.
Egyptian pharaohs used to marry their own sisters. Several communities in Asia and Africa marry their own first siblings, cousins, or uncles marry their nieces.
While western culture may forbid it, the world doesn't necessarily revolve around western civilizations.
Morality is seldom absolute and in this case, it's quite relative (sorry, bad pun).