![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, this has been a dramalicious week on LJ, and while it's calming down a bit as LJ/Six Apart does damage control, much of the ill feeling and unease out there won't go away quickly. As the company has responded to the outcry and commendably taken steps to rectify the mistakes, it's been interesting to nose through the ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
news community comments (though I usually don't get past the fifth or sixth page of 'em) and see two extreme positions develop among some. Some people take the LJ can never be trusted again; this just proves they're corporate Nazi whores; no matter what they do to right the wrongs, it'll NEVER be enough. Even if they gave us all lifetime free accounts. And lifetime pie, and maybe a pony every other year. Heads must roll, and bounce. But then others take an opposite tack: They made some mistakes in the course of doing something right; they've admitted it, they're fixing it, so everything's sunny and rosy and happy. And to further criticize the company or withhold any but the blindest trust in the execs' goodwill is uncharitable, bitter paranoia. But I'd still like pie and ponies.
These extremes are, by definition, equally off the tracks and, I hope, out of keeping with most users' views. My thought on the situation? LJ/6A reacted to a legitimate concern/complaint/issue (pedophilia), which is a legitimate concern even though raised by a group probably acting in bad faith (WFI). In doing so, the company acted overhastily, over quickly, heavyhandedly and without truly investigating; and, in fact, revealed some strange and erroneous assumptions (the whole idea about "interests" meaning "likes" -- tell that to a World War II researcher "interested" in Hitler or a cancer survivor "interested" in sarcoma). But, in response to outcry, much of which was informed and reasonable objection, the company has acknowledged its error and has taken steps to rectify it and to see about avoiding future such problems. So my reaction? It's one neither of blind trust or paranoia: I give the company the benefit of the doubt, thank them for listening and acknowledging the mistake, and wish them well -- while still offering suggestions and constructive criticism about where the policies (old or new) are off the mark and also scrutinizing its future actions closely, as an informed customer considering whether it's a company with which I want to do continue to do business. For now, I do. If something like this happens in the future, I may re-evaluate. I think my approach is reasonable; and I think it's the approach most reasonable people here are taking.
Giving LJ/6A the benefit of the doubt and some time to fix what's wrong is not naive and sycophantic. And watching them closely to make sure they don't repeat their mistakes (or make new, maybe worse ones) is not bitter and ungracious. It's just doing sensible business.
Words: Andrew Jackson by H.W. Brands
State O'Mind: Content, fer now
news community comments (though I usually don't get past the fifth or sixth page of 'em) and see two extreme positions develop among some. Some people take the LJ can never be trusted again; this just proves they're corporate Nazi whores; no matter what they do to right the wrongs, it'll NEVER be enough. Even if they gave us all lifetime free accounts. And lifetime pie, and maybe a pony every other year. Heads must roll, and bounce. But then others take an opposite tack: They made some mistakes in the course of doing something right; they've admitted it, they're fixing it, so everything's sunny and rosy and happy. And to further criticize the company or withhold any but the blindest trust in the execs' goodwill is uncharitable, bitter paranoia. But I'd still like pie and ponies.These extremes are, by definition, equally off the tracks and, I hope, out of keeping with most users' views. My thought on the situation? LJ/6A reacted to a legitimate concern/complaint/issue (pedophilia), which is a legitimate concern even though raised by a group probably acting in bad faith (WFI). In doing so, the company acted overhastily, over quickly, heavyhandedly and without truly investigating; and, in fact, revealed some strange and erroneous assumptions (the whole idea about "interests" meaning "likes" -- tell that to a World War II researcher "interested" in Hitler or a cancer survivor "interested" in sarcoma). But, in response to outcry, much of which was informed and reasonable objection, the company has acknowledged its error and has taken steps to rectify it and to see about avoiding future such problems. So my reaction? It's one neither of blind trust or paranoia: I give the company the benefit of the doubt, thank them for listening and acknowledging the mistake, and wish them well -- while still offering suggestions and constructive criticism about where the policies (old or new) are off the mark and also scrutinizing its future actions closely, as an informed customer considering whether it's a company with which I want to do continue to do business. For now, I do. If something like this happens in the future, I may re-evaluate. I think my approach is reasonable; and I think it's the approach most reasonable people here are taking.
Giving LJ/6A the benefit of the doubt and some time to fix what's wrong is not naive and sycophantic. And watching them closely to make sure they don't repeat their mistakes (or make new, maybe worse ones) is not bitter and ungracious. It's just doing sensible business.
Words: Andrew Jackson by H.W. Brands
State O'Mind: Content, fer now
