?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Memo to the new LJAB Member - LJ United -- Standing Up For LiveJournal's Future! [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
LJ United -- Standing Up For LiveJournal's Future!

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Memo to the new LJAB Member [May. 31st, 2008|10:10 pm]
LJ United -- Standing Up For LiveJournal's Future!

ljunited

[eruditeviking]
[Current Mood |hopefulhopeful]

Earlier today I posted the following message to our newly elected Live Journal Advisory Board member. I have not yet gotten a response back from her, but I am hoping that she may chose to either join our group or at the very least create a forum where we can express our goals and ideas to her for consideration by the board. I will update the group as soon as I have a response and some time to post it.




To legomymalfoy

Since you've won, would it be feasible to ask you to create a place where we can interact with you in a more accessible way? Perhaps a community dedicated to your role as a live journal advisory board member? I was hoping to have a forum where we could bring issues that we wish to have addressed by LJ via our representative.

You may also wish to consider talking to insomnia over at the community ljunited since our group is dedicated to user base oriented goals.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: insomnia
2008-06-01 04:04 pm (UTC)
I left a message to LMM last week, encouraging them to do an interview in our community to address their POV regarding our platform, to address issues, etc.

No response yet, though.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: eruditeviking
2008-06-01 05:30 pm (UTC)
Responses from her are painfully slow for anyone not on her friends list from what I can tell.

Side Note: A number of our issues were at least partly dealt with by the new policy changes, and I was wondering if you wanted to go over them and make a post regarding those changes and propose the necessary updates to our charter goals.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: insomnia
2008-06-01 07:12 pm (UTC)
I don't think the new changes necessitate changing our goals, as those should be constant.

Judging from the changes, I see some real possibilities that their policy changes might actually lead to further restrictions against users.

They have, for example, indicated that they are actually expanding the definition of what is hate speech. But what if that's not really hate speech, per se, but parody, comedy, etc? What if it's the LJ equivalent of ginger kids? Or what about the example recently of a LJ user in Russia who faces imprisonment for suggesting that corrupt police be publically burned in town squares? Clearly, that's hate speech now too under these new definitions, even though it only focuses against corrupt cops -- criminals, essentially -- and not against any racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual orientation, as any true hate speech legislation would ordinarily be limited by. And again, no limits as to context.

"(Insert politician / dictator) should die." Hate speech?!

Likewise, they have called for researching and possibly taking actions against behavior that may cause self-harm. Cutting... pro-ana... but what about fiction vs. reality? What guarantees will be in place to protect BDSM or numerous unsafe sexual practices? Discussion of drug use -- real or fictional.

So, while you may see improvements, I see a real risk that they are backing away slightly on a few issues that got them into trouble, while actively threatening rights on several new fronts.

If you want to make a post about the changes at this time, please feel free to do so. The real issue is what should happen -- and what we should do -- if they get these changes wrong.

Edited at 2008-06-01 07:13 pm (UTC)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: eruditeviking
2008-06-01 05:28 pm (UTC)
It's funny how only a certain cabal of people assume we're some power grab organization setting about to make insomnia King of all of El Jay Land. Seriously, you need to get off your high horse and get a clue for a change because it's getting dull to listen to.

This group existed before the nominations, we didn't nominate any of our own members, and we still exist after the election. I realize nothing I say is going to make you change your mind, but at this point I don't really care. I'm just curious as to why you're bothering to hang around if you think we're only here for that purpose, which as you point out "failed". You don't believe in our goals, you've made that painfully obvious.

I'm well aware of you foray into legalese, and I can easily surmise where you are going with this line of thought. I just don't agree with you, and I surmise that neither will a court of law should it be taken so far.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: squnq
2008-06-01 05:37 pm (UTC)
It always amuses me how people's immediate reaction to contrary opinions of a community or journal is to go "well why are you here if you don't like it".

Anyways, the promises made by LJ back in the day were made by Livejournal when it was a separate entity and became invalid when it was purchased by another company (and another). No representative, rm or otherwise, was going to have any ability or influence to restore the creation of new basic accounts and the like. The current advisory board member, however, is so distant from the community that pretty much all organizations and communities on LJ which had their own agenda should be able to agree that the outcome was far from optimal.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: insomnia
2008-06-01 07:29 pm (UTC)
Cambler, you're full of it.

If I wanted power, I would've entered the race myself. Except, of course, you and I both know that the position in question doesn't *HAVE* any power that the members of LJ do not give it. It's only as powerful as that person's ability to influence the management's decisions, end of story.

What I *did* want was qualified, credible candidates who actually took a solid policy on the issues.

Yes, we tried to get rm elected, and thought that she would've been a very good candidate, especially for people who wanted to unite around a solid stand that it's wrong to violate any LJer's rights. No, we didn't endorse you. And yet you whined so, and threw your lot in with a bunch of dramatis personae, rather than people who were openly serious about people's rights. And now you're playing the blame game.

Well, look in the mirror. After all, you were a candidate.

I have serious reservations about LMM as well, and I think that, as I've commented above, that these new changes aren't necessarily for the better at all. But what's been your answer all throughout this process, other than cynicism and division?!

Really, you want openness here for your POV, but all you do is crap all over what we're trying to accomplish.

Edited at 2008-06-01 07:48 pm (UTC)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: queerbychoice
2008-06-01 09:07 pm (UTC)
"Really, you want openness here for your POV, but all you do is crap all over what we're trying to accomplish."

Agreed, so how about banning cambler?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2008-06-04 03:43 am (UTC)
Did she ever respond?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: eruditeviking
2008-06-04 12:36 pm (UTC)
No, she has not.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2008-06-04 06:10 pm (UTC)
Let me feign surprise.

:(
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: m03m
2008-06-05 06:26 am (UTC)
*Everything* in her blog is flocked now. Even the 'Election post' that was public before, although comments were screened.
The silence is deafening.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: adameros
2008-07-23 07:38 pm (UTC)
I am hosting an unofficial referendum vote on legomymalfoy's accessibility and performance.

Please vote.

http://adameros.livejournal.com/2599937.html

Also, please have your friends vote.

[Edit: I said "official" as opposed to "unofficial" by mistake.]

Edited at 2008-07-23 07:41 pm (UTC)
(Reply) (Thread)