• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

My posting summary

1 to 2 of 2

My comments

• Argh... repost with line breaks added
  Sorry... reposting with line breaks, to spare you the eye pain.
  
  

  Mr. Berkowitz,
  
  

  After a couple hundred suspensions and two days of panic and confusion among the LiveJournal userbase, I am pleased to see that you have finally deigned to comment on this fracas. Admittedly, your first comments are directed to CNet rather than to your userbase, but you commented nevertheless. You had your chance to explain yourself, to apologize to the users whose journals contained no illegal content and were wrongly suspended. But you chose not to. Instead, you had this to say:
  
  

  Our decision here was not based on pure legal issues. It was based on what community we want to build and what we think is appropriate within that community and what's not.

  
  
  

  Those are your words. They are printed in bold red type on the CNet article. With those words, you have made it clear that the responsibility for this debacle lies squarely with you—not with the nutters at Warriors for Innocence, whatever their involvement, but with you. And your userbase is going to remember them for a very long time, with any luck. After the LiveJournal abuse team has spent all day telling the owners of suspended journals and communities that the decision to suspend them based strictly on items in their interest lists was a move made to protect LiveJournal from liability, you contradicted them and disclosed that the actions taken against those journals were "not based on pure legal issues." No, they were based on the loftier goals of what community we want to build and what we think is appropriate within that community and what's not.
  
  

  Who is "we," Mr. Berkowitz? Do you really mean just "you"? Do you mean SixApart's board of directors? The administrators and support team of LiveJournal? Or is it really your advertisers you mean? One thing is for sure, Mr. Berkowitz—you are not speaking for me.
  
  

  So, whomever you're speaking for, you say that you're doing this on the basis of what community we want to build? You've suddenly had a new epiphany about what community we want to build? You changed your mind remarkably quickly; what is appropriate within that community now seems to be a rather radical departure from what was appropriate a few months ago. And you've decided to move forward with this new vision of what community we want to build without any announcements on the news page? Without any requests for feedback from the members of said community? Without any warning whatsoever? Overnight, LiveJournal's long-standing commitment to freedom of expression is thrown out, to be replaced with what we think is approprate within that community?
  
  

  Mr. Berkowitz, arrogant patriarchs since the dawn of history have been making decrees about what community we want to build. They've been dividing the world into what we think is appropriate, and what's not. They've drawn circles of firelight and declared everything beyond the circle the Other, the outcast, the enemy. They've used fear of the enemy to justify the arbitrary strictures they place upon the righteous, to keep the shadows at bay. Only in the modern world, illuminated not by the flickering torches of superstition but by the flourescent lightbulb of reason, have cultures rejected the arrogant patriarch and begun to accept the Other into the light, begun to realize that right and wrong, good and evil are based on a higher truth than simply what we think is appropriate and what's not. The culture of the Internet is the highest realization of that ideal, and LiveJournal was once a brilliant example of that culture. But you, Mr. Berkowitz—you have redrawn the circle and told your users that the shadows—all but a dozen of them, at least—are a thing to be feared. They are not what we think is appropriate.
  
  

  Look—unlike most people these days, I trust capitalism. When SixApart bought LiveJournal, I trusted it—surely it would just increase the site's access to money and talent, and wouldn't force any kind of change to the core philosophy of the service. When the advertisements began to appear, I trusted it—it's okay to take in enough money to keep the site running and make a decent profit, and they'll be opt-in anyway, right? But today you have violated that trust. Whether it's the influence of your advertisers or your own misguided vision of what community we want to build, you have used your power as owner of LiveJournal to twist it into something it was never meant to be.
  
  

  Will I leave LiveJournal over this, as so many of your users are now promising to do? No, I will not. Out of love for the friends I have here, and out of respect for the quality of the site—a quality imbued in it by its original creators and owners, not by any subsequent corporate parasites—I will stay. But—if your words today are representative of the direction of the site—I will never buy a paid account. I will never upgrade to a plus account. I will never click on the ads on any other user's journal. I will use it as it was intended to be used—freely, until you decide that my use of it is no longer what we think is appropriate.
  
  

  But I want to know, Mr. Berkowitz—what is the community we want to build? What is appropriate within that community? Your users deserve more than inane vagaries. They deserve a detailed statement of principles, a new Terms of Service to go with your new vision for what community we want to build. Tell us, Mr. Berkowitz. Will it be a community where people can freely discuss and explore human sexuality in all its forms? Will it be a community where people can freely tell stories about their favorite characters from fandom? Will it be a community where people can express themselves fully and openly, without needing to fear that their identity might not be what we think is appropriate?
  
  

  Or will this community continue down the road you have set it on today? Will it be a place where users need to self-censor their thoughts, their stories, even their interest lists—just in case they don't match what we think is appropriate? Will it be a place where users are suspended arbitrarily, without warning, without even a standard by which they can know what we think is appropriate and conduct themselves accordingly? Will it be a place where a tiny group of nutters with unpleasant connections can speak a few words to your advertisers, and suddenly what we think is appropriate shifts overnight? Will it be a place like most other places in this world, where only certain words, certain thoughts, certain people are what we think is appropriate, and everything else is cast out into the darkness and called Other?
  
  

  Tell us, Mr. Berkowitz. The choice is yours. Your users—your customers—are listening.

  May 30, 2007

  0 replies

• An open letter to Barak Berkowitz
  Mr. Berkowitz,
  
  After a couple hundred suspensions and two days of panic and confusion among the LiveJournal userbase, I am pleased to see that you have finally deigned to comment on this fracas. Admittedly, your first comments are directed to CNet rather than to your userbase, but you commented nevertheless. You had your chance to explain yourself, to apologize to the users whose journals contained no illegal content and were wrongly suspended. But you chose not to. Instead, you had this to say:
  
  

  Our decision here was not based on pure legal issues. It was based on what community we want to build and what we think is appropriate within that community and what's not.

  
  
  Those are your words. They are printed in bold red type on the CNet article. With those words, you have made it clear that the responsibility for this debacle lies squarely with you—not with the nutters at Warriors for Innocence, whatever their involvement, but with you. And your userbase is going to remember them for a very long time, with any luck. After the LiveJournal abuse team has spent all day telling the owners of suspended journals and communities that the decision to suspend them based strictly on items in their interest lists was a move made to protect LiveJournal from liability, you contradicted them and disclosed that the actions taken against those journals were "not based on pure legal issues." No, they were based on the loftier goals of what community we want to build and what we think is appropriate within that community and what's not.
  
  Who is "we," Mr. Berkowitz? Do you really mean just "you"? Do you mean SixApart's board of directors? The administrators and support team of LiveJournal? Or is it really your advertisers you mean? One thing is for sure, Mr. Berkowitz—you are not speaking for me.
  
  So, whomever you're speaking for, you say that you're doing this on the basis of what community we want to build? You've suddenly had a new epiphany about what community we want to build? You changed your mind remarkably quickly; what is appropriate within that community now seems to be a rather radical departure from what was appropriate a few months ago. And you've decided to move forward with this new vision of what community we want to build without any announcements on the news page? Without any requests for feedback from the members of said community? Without any warning whatsoever? Overnight, LiveJournal's long-standing commitment to freedom of expression is thrown out, to be replaced with what we think is approprate within that community?
  
  Mr. Berkowitz, arrogant patriarchs since the dawn of history have been making decrees about what community we want to build. They've been dividing the world into what we think is appropriate, and what's not. They've drawn circles of firelight and declared everything beyond the circle the Other, the outcast, the enemy. They've used fear of the enemy to justify the arbitrary strictures they place upon the righteous, to keep the shadows at bay. Only in the modern world, illuminated not by the flickering torches of superstition but by the flourescent lightbulb of reason, have cultures rejected the arrogant patriarch and begun to accept the Other into the light, begun to realize that right and wrong, good and evil are based on a higher truth than simply what we think is appropriate and what's not. The culture of the Internet is the highest realization of that ideal, and LiveJournal was once a brilliant example of that culture. But you, Mr. Berkowitz—you have redrawn the circle and told your users that the shadows—all but a dozen of them, at least—are a thing to be feared. They are not what we think is appropriate.
  
  Look—unlike most people these days, I trust capitalism. When SixApart bought LiveJournal, I trusted it—surely it would just increase the site's access to money and talent, and wouldn't force any kind of change to the core philosophy of the service. When the advertisements began to appear, I trusted it—it's okay to take in enough money to keep the site running and make a decent profit, and they'll be opt-in anyway, right? But today you have violated that trust. Whether it's the influence of your advertisers or your own misguided vision of what community we want to build, you have used your power as owner of LiveJournal to twist it into something it was never meant to be.
  
  Will I leave LiveJournal over this, as so many of your users are now promising to do? No, I will not. Out of love for the friends I have here, and out of respect for the quality of the site—a quality imbued in it by its original creators and owners, not by any subsequent corporate parasites—I will stay. But—if your words today are representative of the direction of the site—I will never buy a paid account. I will never upgrade to a plus account. I will never click on the ads on any other user's journal. I will use it as it was intended to be used—freely, until you decide that my use of it is no longer what we think is appropriate.
  
  But I want to know, Mr. Berkowitz—what is the community we want to build? What is appropriate within that community? Your users deserve more than inane vagaries. They deserve a detailed statement of principles, a new Terms of Service to go with your new vision for what community we want to build. Tell us, Mr. Berkowitz. Will it be a community where people can freely discuss and explore human sexuality in all its forms? Will it be a community where people can freely tell stories about their favorite characters from fandom? Will it be a community where people can express themselves fully and openly, without needing to fear that their identity might not be what we think is appropriate?
  
  Or will this community continue down the road you have set it on today? Will it be a place where users need to self-censor their thoughts, their stories, even their interest lists—just in case they don't match what we think is appropriate? Will it be a place where users are suspended arbitrarily, without warning, without even a standard by which they can know what we think is appropriate and conduct themselves accordingly? Will it be a place where a tiny group of nutters with unpleasant connections can speak a few words to your advertisers, and suddenly what we think is appropriate shifts overnight? Will it be a place like most other places in this world, where only certain words, certain thoughts, certain people are what we think is appropriate, and everything else is cast out into the darkness and called Other?
  
  Tell us, Mr. Berkowitz. The choice is yours. Your users—your customers—are listening.

  May 30, 2007

  1 reply