Diversity is the strength of LJ - this ideal they have come up with is only going to stifle that. If you give people that much power, inevitably they will abuse it. Abuse will stop being about dubious and/or illegal content and become about vendettas against a person or group of people based on what? A black person writing about their views of white people in a less than charitable way? Devout Christians going after homosexuals? Shippers using explicit fic as a way of getting rid of their rival ship's comm? Where do you draw the line?
I use my journal for many purposes - most people on LJ probably do. The idea that there would be some kind of panel to read the contents of my journal to assess my 'suitability' to blog on the LJ platform gives me the chills. I could write one thing that someone finds 'distasteful' and lose my whole blog because of that. That is wrong - making the non-objective masses of LJ to become it's sanitation commission will end in tears. Something Barak should take into account while he's thinking about his IPO. Investors aren't going to be interested in something that is dead in the water because people are constantly in fear of being shut down and go elsewhere.
I think they really need to step back and take a long hard look at what makes their community. LJ is made up of thousands of different types of communities, with many sub-types. You cannot police them all in the same way. Not to mention the users who make up these communities are from many different countries, with different cultural backgrounds and from different walks of life. My life experience is different from the next person - the next person's life might be a lovely bed of roses - mine certainly isn't and hasn't been.
In short, there is much in my particular microcosm of LJ that irritates and bothers me, but what kind of person would it make me if I voted, given the ability, to silence the voices of others??? I may not like what people have to say, but I don't have to listen to it. And my annoyance, or a communal vote thereof, should not be enough to take away the voice of anyone.
no subject
I use my journal for many purposes - most people on LJ probably do. The idea that there would be some kind of panel to read the contents of my journal to assess my 'suitability' to blog on the LJ platform gives me the chills. I could write one thing that someone finds 'distasteful' and lose my whole blog because of that. That is wrong - making the non-objective masses of LJ to become it's sanitation commission will end in tears. Something Barak should take into account while he's thinking about his IPO. Investors aren't going to be interested in something that is dead in the water because people are constantly in fear of being shut down and go elsewhere.
I think they really need to step back and take a long hard look at what makes their community. LJ is made up of thousands of different types of communities, with many sub-types. You cannot police them all in the same way. Not to mention the users who make up these communities are from many different countries, with different cultural backgrounds and from different walks of life. My life experience is different from the next person - the next person's life might be a lovely bed of roses - mine certainly isn't and hasn't been.
In short, there is much in my particular microcosm of LJ that irritates and bothers me, but what kind of person would it make me if I voted, given the ability, to silence the voices of others??? I may not like what people have to say, but I don't have to listen to it. And my annoyance, or a communal vote thereof, should not be enough to take away the voice of anyone.