May 31st, 2007

edog think

teh eljay

Maybe it's the mood I'm in or something, but I'm having a really hard time understanding the widespread uproar regarding SixApart's decision to suspend or delete a few journals. Irritation I can understand, disagreement I can understand, but so much of the seems to be vitriolic indignation in response to a business decision relative to a complaint from an outside source, one that actually has some degree of legitimacy: "Hey, some of the journals on your site promote pedophilia."

SA: "OMG I think you're right." *baleet*

LJ USERS EVERYWHERE: "OMG FUCKIN NAZIS!"

SA made an error by getting a little overinclusive with the journals it deleted. Considering this was done in many cases solely on interests listed, I can't see that this was unforgiveable. Although it's not directly pertinent to the complaint, about 40 coms and ten times as many users list "killing people" as an interest, so I'd SA is still being fairly liberal in allowing folks to write about any damn thing they feel like. 500 journals were deleted, out of 13 million ... that's less than 4 thousandths of one percent. I just can't follow the logic of the outcry, especially in light of what I see as apologetic, sincere, and prompt attempts to try to rectify the error. Would it be better if the deletion was underinclusive, or if SA had disregarded the complaint?

SA is a business. Like any other business, the consumer has a choice -not- to avail him/her/itself of the services provided, on the terms set. I hate the well-worn "if you don't like it here, then leave" mantra, and that's not my point with this. My point is to have some perspective on how a business operates, and realize that you're really not entitled to that much.
  • Current Mood
    quixotic quixotic