novalis: (Default)
([personal profile] novalis May. 27th, 2008 05:10 pm)
Vote [livejournal.com profile] rm in the elections. There are only three users who have a serious explicit commitment to freedom of speech in their platform, and [livejournal.com profile] rm is both the best and most popular of these. My second and third choices are hopeless, so my ballot is effectively truncated.

This is one of those cases where I would rather that [livejournal.com profile] jameth, a non-serious candidate with no articulable platform, win than the current leader, [livejournal.com profile] legomymalfoy, because I think that LJ is ultimately doomed anyway, and a candidate who is serious about the status quo is significantly more likely to give the advisory board an air of legitimacy than a candidate who represents the protest vote. Still, I won't give [livejournal.com profile] jameth my second- or third-place vote because I think it's probably better to vote sincerely and see how it goes.

Note: this is somewhat different from how I would advise voting in a general election, because while I know lots of people who have left LJ, I know nobody (or almost nobody; I'm sure I'm forgetting someone) who has left their country because of politics.
brooksmoses: (Default)

From: [personal profile] brooksmoses


Hmm. An interesting point, there, and one I hadn't entirely considered with regards to [livejournal.com profile] legomymalfoy as compared to [livejournal.com profile] jameth.

Insofar as I disagree with you, though -- and I'm sure how much I do -- the reasons would be that I don't think [livejournal.com profile] jameth represents the protest vote so much as the "drama is more fun than being responsible" vote, and I particularly would expect SUP to see it as the latter regardless of what the voters mean to say with their votes.

I'm also not entirely sure why it's bad to give the advisory board an "air of legitimacy" about the status quo, if it's doomed anyway. Is a rubber-stamp user-representative worse than giving the "they're all drama-prone irresponsible whiners" view SUP has of LJ users an air of legitimacy? (Serious question; I can see arguments for both sides, mostly reducing to the idea that in either case SUP will do whatever they want and the advisory board will be useless.)

From: [identity profile] novalis.livejournal.com


I agree that what [livejournal.com profile] jameth represents is a bit more complex than I put forth.

The reason to care about the advisory board is because the timing of LJ's death matters a bit; right now, there's no good way to leave, because LJ users won't be able to read your friends-locked posts. But there might be some day, through a combination of OpenID and other mechanisms now in development.

From: [identity profile] novalis.livejournal.com


People will be more motivated to develop these alternatives if they grow more disillusioned with LJ.
brooksmoses: (Default)

From: [personal profile] brooksmoses


Ah. I was about to ask how you thought the advisory board choice would affect that timing. :)

I'm not sure how much I agree with that, though -- from what I've seen on [livejournal.com profile] elsejournal, which is admittedly not a statistically significant anecdote, it looks like the motivation is much more likely to come from people who are largely independent of LJ, and have financial motivations (e.g., building a competing service), rather than from LJ users who are merely looking for some way to deal with their disillusionment. But I could be wrong.

From: [identity profile] eisa.livejournal.com


Already did. I also really like that rm talks about access for people with disabilities.

From: [identity profile] novalis.livejournal.com


Yeah. It's weird to have a candidate I can actually endorse, rather than just hold my nose and vote for.
.

Profile

novalis: (Default)
novalis
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags