![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Dear Internets:
I am really, really tired of hearing people going around talking about how the planned LJ strike for tomorrow is useless and stupid and therefore nobody should bother taking part in it.
Yes! The number of people staying off LJ tomorrow won't be enough to make a noticable blip on LJ's radar, especially since most people don't post daily anyway, especially since it's a really bad day to schedule it, especially since Russia has different cultural ideas of how social action works, especially since LJ corporate doesn't actually look at daily usage stats in the first place.
But: The strike is accomplishing two things:
1) it is generating enough buzz to annoy SUP's leadership a great deal; and
2) it is getting people excited about working together to do something to make a difference in their world.
Those are both things that I support doing. I support 1) because I am spiteful enough that I like the idea of giving our corporate overlords a little bit more stress in their lives, and because getting attention (especially attention in tech-focused media) is the best way to amplify our voice. Making sure that the people in power don't forget how loud, and how persistent, that voice can be is the best way to convince them that they can't get away with this crap, now and in the future. The planned strike is *already* doing both of those things, as is apparent from the articles that are getting linked around. And putting our action in the form of a "content strike" is, I think, an excellent way of getting that attention, because it's an idiom that both calls back to familiar forms of social action, and calls forward to modern "web 4.0" rhetoric which talks about users as content providers as workers.
I support 2) because I believe that collective social action is the only method that has ever been shown to be effective in putting a check on people in power, and therefore collective social action, so long as it's not actively doing harm, ought to be encouraged. If for no other reason than that too many people have completely lost that spirit of activism that is what has made today's world as livable as it is, and growing that spirit wherever it arises can only encourage people to carry an activist energy out into all parts of their lives. And I, for one, believe that one thing that needs to change is making people willing to do something, collectively, when they're being screwed over by the powerful, instead of just knuckling under.
No, this probably isn't the most efficient or effective way to use the energy that's out there in fandom right now. But at least it's doing *something*. A postcard campaign might be the best way to talk to the Powers that Be, but if we want real, ongoing change, we need to do something that is also heard by *us*. The strike's doing that. What, exactly, is accomplished by telling everyone that they're powerless and useless instead?
That said, I can't participate because I haven't posted at lj since Strikethrough anyway. I do, however, plan to participate in the parallel initiative of "Post Something to Your IJ and/or JF account instead". It will probably be meta about grassroots internet activism and what it is, and what it isn't. 'Cause I've been thinking about that lately, for some reason.
Yes! The number of people staying off LJ tomorrow won't be enough to make a noticable blip on LJ's radar, especially since most people don't post daily anyway, especially since it's a really bad day to schedule it, especially since Russia has different cultural ideas of how social action works, especially since LJ corporate doesn't actually look at daily usage stats in the first place.
But: The strike is accomplishing two things:
1) it is generating enough buzz to annoy SUP's leadership a great deal; and
2) it is getting people excited about working together to do something to make a difference in their world.
Those are both things that I support doing. I support 1) because I am spiteful enough that I like the idea of giving our corporate overlords a little bit more stress in their lives, and because getting attention (especially attention in tech-focused media) is the best way to amplify our voice. Making sure that the people in power don't forget how loud, and how persistent, that voice can be is the best way to convince them that they can't get away with this crap, now and in the future. The planned strike is *already* doing both of those things, as is apparent from the articles that are getting linked around. And putting our action in the form of a "content strike" is, I think, an excellent way of getting that attention, because it's an idiom that both calls back to familiar forms of social action, and calls forward to modern "web 4.0" rhetoric which talks about users as content providers as workers.
I support 2) because I believe that collective social action is the only method that has ever been shown to be effective in putting a check on people in power, and therefore collective social action, so long as it's not actively doing harm, ought to be encouraged. If for no other reason than that too many people have completely lost that spirit of activism that is what has made today's world as livable as it is, and growing that spirit wherever it arises can only encourage people to carry an activist energy out into all parts of their lives. And I, for one, believe that one thing that needs to change is making people willing to do something, collectively, when they're being screwed over by the powerful, instead of just knuckling under.
No, this probably isn't the most efficient or effective way to use the energy that's out there in fandom right now. But at least it's doing *something*. A postcard campaign might be the best way to talk to the Powers that Be, but if we want real, ongoing change, we need to do something that is also heard by *us*. The strike's doing that. What, exactly, is accomplished by telling everyone that they're powerless and useless instead?
That said, I can't participate because I haven't posted at lj since Strikethrough anyway. I do, however, plan to participate in the parallel initiative of "Post Something to Your IJ and/or JF account instead". It will probably be meta about grassroots internet activism and what it is, and what it isn't. 'Cause I've been thinking about that lately, for some reason.
no subject
I don't even care about basic accounts or the interest filtering, but their handling of it was so damned insulting and inept.
no subject
At this point it's mostly certain segments of fandom's "just shut up and take it" attitude that's pissing me off. >:|
no subject
no subject
no subject
like working on a new lj layout.)no subject
no subject
But I agree that the energy could be better directed. Thing is - the energy is there, and harnessing that energy is valuable *in itself*; getting people to realize that speaking up collectively is okay is difficult in itself (as is demonstrated by the vast numbers of people who are desperately uncomfortable at the idea of a strike) and the more the energy is kept up, the easier it is to do it again later, when the stakes *are* important.
no subject
As for "next time" -- Weren't the stakes important back in Strikethrough? In Boldthrough?
To get your energy up and have nothing result is demoralzing. Combine that with fandom's tendency to exaggerate its own importance, and you have not people "desperately uncomfortable" with the idea of a strike, but coming to realization that fandom doesn't form enough of a user-base to impact LJ's policies, and hasn't for years. If, in fact, it ever did.
no subject
And at this point, them just *asking* the advisory board first would be a step up. You don't have to win it all, but getting them to give in on anything is a victory.
In strikethrough and boldthrough fandom actually *did* win back concessions - all the accounts that were suspended (and fussed about) got unsuspended, some people got fired or shuffled around, and there was some movement on the area of clearer policies and community accountability. Some of which is being moved back now, which is why staying loud is important. But that we got those communities and accounts (and interests) back is actually pretty amazing - apparently fandom *does* have the ability to impact lj's policies! Who knew! At the time I didn't believe it would work but it *did*. By the standards of most activism, that's a *resounding* success.
All activism is the result of a highly vocal minority that won't shut up. You're rarely going to get even a noticeable fraction of an affected population to really speak out, at least until the very end stages of change. But a highly vocal, heavily networked minority *is* all it ever takes to get things rolling.
Even if we don't win any concessions (and with this mess, the objectives aren't as clear) "We fought but the bastards were stronger - that time!" is *way* less demoralizing than "we were angry but we sat on our hands 'cause we couldn't've won anyway." That's about as demoralizing as it gets.
Sure - if you're intentionally building energy, you want to pick your targets carefully, because people do get demoralized if they spend enough time being dashed against a wall. But in this case the energy is already *there*; it's a question of letting it do *something*, or letting it fester.
no subject
Yes, the communities and the accounts were reinstated. However, that was perceived to be just a symptom. What fandom wanted was the assurance that porn -- let's be blunt, it was about porn -- would never be in danger of being removed again. That wasn't going to happen, LJ said it wasn't going to happen, so the reinstatements were seen as a Pyrrhic victory.
There was a post on
The point of a business is to make money. Period. The only way to get a business to change its practices is to hit it in the pocketbook. The only way to hit LJ in the pocketbook is a true boycott: leaving the service until the changes you want happen. All the built-up energy won't matter if enough people aren't willing to carry through to that step. There aren't. Because you wouldn't need just fandom to leave -- fandom's not that big a presence. You'd need the other subcultures to go along with fandom: the religious communities, the political communities, the other hobbyists, etc.
no subject
I guess we just have a very different perspective on how Strikethrough was perceived by fandom. Most of the conversations I followed considered it a victory for fandom and came out of it enthused about doing more (and as a charter p_p member, I was in the thick of it.) I think that fandom also got the message across pretty early on that we weren't likely to get blanket approval of porn - and in fact most people *weren't* asking for that, they were asking simply to be told where the line *was*. We still haven't got that either, but SUP has (supposedly) been working on it. I guess your mileage may vary, but the mere fact that the strike got so widely spoken of so fast showed me that a lot of people *did* think the Strikethrough stuff was successful.
I suppose the real answer is that fandom isn't a monolith and there probably were people with unrealistic expectations who were crushed, but there were large numbers of people who had the opposite experience, too.
The point of a business is indeed to make money. But - especially in internet business - you don't get your hands on the big money by making your business profitable; you make it by getting other rich people to invest in your business. Creating a perception that your customer base is hostile to your company and your leadership is incompetent is an excellent way to make those investors think twice about giving you their money. Lots of bad publicity coming from a small but vocal group is enough to do that. Hurting them in the investors (and other big-money sources, like advertisers) through bad publicity is always going to be more effective than chipping away at base profits. And fandom can do that.