?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I don't usually get all worked up in re: LiveJournal politics, but this is ridiculous. Have you heard? They've eliminated the possibility to make a new "Basic" (i.e. ad-free, cost-free) account. One has to choose a Plus account (ads! ew!) or Paid.

Not only did they do that, but they DIDN'T MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT. They were like "oh, hey, lookit these changes we are making, we are doing really super awesome, also the sign-up process is easier!" They meant it's easier because now there are TWO account options instead of three. When someone realized what was happening and posted in the comments, and then everyone freaked out, they were like, "oh, our bad, we thought you wouldn't care because it affects new users, not you. Also we're still trying to figure out the right "tone" to take with you people." This is absurd for a million reasons.

Here's Brad's take on it.

The whole thing is gross.

Comments

( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
toomskt
Mar. 14th, 2008 03:45 pm (UTC)
I'm honestly totally perplexed by the whole thing and not sure why it's such a big deal to everyone. Of course a business should find a way to make money from its product? And ads are usually the way to do that online? And honestly, if every business decision I made caused the kind of unyielding vitriol and backlash that seems to happen on LJ, I'd spin or withhold details of my decision process, too, I think. I must be missing something since I'm not of the old-school "I know Brad" crowd, but I just don't quite get why everyone seems so angry all the time like the LJ team killed their puppy. Maybe I'm weird.
littlewashu
Mar. 14th, 2008 04:24 pm (UTC)
For me personally, my problem is the way they handled the situation. Their second post should have been their first: "we need to do this, it is a business decision." Brad had always said that there wouldn't be ads on LJ. As a grownup, I understand that that's not practical, it can't be that way forever. But they should have known that because that was the historical take on the subject, that there would be backlash now that that's changing. So they tried to . . . not mention it? Did they think no one would notice? They were going to have to deal with a lot of upset users eventually. It would have made more sense to be straight with the users from the start.

They just did a REALLY SHITTY job of handling the situation. Either they don't know who LiveJournal users are, or they don't care, and either way it's pretty lame.
toomskt
Mar. 14th, 2008 04:27 pm (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense - if the second message had been the first, they'd be in a stronger position to defend their business decision.
mordicai
Mar. 20th, 2008 08:10 pm (UTC)
the idea, which i am in agreement with, is that allowing "free" users means that you get content, generated, for free, by those users. & thus, there IS a livejournal, to make money.
counterfeitfake
Mar. 14th, 2008 06:04 pm (UTC)
Big company buys successful small online community and fucks it up. How unpredictable.
(Anonymous)
Apr. 5th, 2008 10:53 pm (UTC)
Amazing text.
thats for sure, brother
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

March 2015
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Witold Riedel