Livejournal v Dreamwidth

Musing a bit more on yesterday’s kerfuffle, I think Livejournal come out of it rather well and Dreamwidth rather badly.

Livejournal’s senior manager responded to me with the words “this was a mistake” and assured me that the proposed change was not being implemented. Their Customer Care folks then followed up with an explicit statement that “We understand that gender is not binary, and intend to respect that understanding for our users.” That seems to me entirely satisfactory. Someone wrote something which did not suit the organisation for which they work, and it is therefore not being used. In the public policy environment where I work, that happens all the time, particularly if (as I suspect here) there are people of varying linguistic and cultural backgrounds involved. Indeed, what is unusual here is the level of transparency at the drafting stage – a rather courageous approach for which one sometimes (as in this case) pays a price.

The whole kerfuffle began with a post by one of Dreamwidth’s co-owners, a former Livejournal staffer, which inaccurately presented the coding change as a done deal, an irreversible decision. You will note also that in the comments on yesterday’s post, a Dreamwidth staffer accuses Livejournal of lying to me, without evidence; and also makes the shocking assertion that Livejournal has been listening to its users, as if this were in some way outrageous.

Dreamwidth have gained a number of extra customers from Livejournal out of all this, based on a report from their own leadership which turns out not to be true, with the flames of this controversy being further deliberately fanned by their own staff even after Livejournal had resolved it. It is very easy to whip up fears of oppression among people who experience it regularly. It is more difficult in such circumstances to admit that you were wrong. I don’t think this affair looks very good for a company which was supposed to represent a more ethical approach to the business of blogging.

I am also perturbed by comments I have seen here and there about this somehow being the fault of the Russians, including the fact that the senior Livejournal manager who responded to me and to many others does not write perfect English and has a foreign name (which looks Ukrainian rather than Russian to me, but what do I know). Really, folks, get a grip. You have no idea how privileged you are to be native speakers of the world’s main language of communication. In any case I seem to remember that the frequency of Livejournal screwups was much greater, and that they were handled far more ineptly, when it was owned by Americans. SUP are running a tighter ship; the President of Russia is one of their customers.

One thought on “Livejournal v Dreamwidth

  1. I agree that it’s unlikely, but I’m not sure I go along with zero chance anymore. The Unionist vote is dropping while the nationalist is merely stagnating (or affected by dissident appeal).

    I really the think the main sleeper issue that didn’t get enough of any airing is the destination of the allaince transfers. People used to say that alliance were a small ‘u’ unionist party which would have annoyed a lot of people (no doubt yourself included). The real thing for me is that in south belfast last year the bulk of transfers go to the SDLP and broadly speaking nationalists. 40% to the SDLP, 5% to the shinners and 20% to the greens (who ultimately transferred on to Conall McDevitt.

    http://www.eoni.org.uk/ni_assembly_election_2011_-_belfast_south_result_sheet.pdf

    On top of that, in north belfast the alliance candidate didn’t have a chance to transfer to any nationalists, but in the Castle ward of the council elections, the elimination of Mckechnie went a whopping 57% to the SDLP, 6% shinner, 17% UUP and the rest dead.

    http://www.eoni.org.uk/local_council_election_2011_-_result_sheet_-_castle.pdf

    The point is two-fold, firstly about what I think is the wrong depiction of alliance voters as unionists who want to boast at the golf club. It’s just not true and really interesting in Belfast in particular. Secondly, in the (unlikely) event that the DUP did run two candidates, the elimination of Nicholson (or whoever) would probably take a large part of the initial alliance transfers from the UUP pack to the SDLP, as well as a fair number of UUP no. 1s who would rather transfer to someone like All-bran Maginness than the ghastly DUP. As well as the that and the plethora of leftist/ republican/ green types who could be bothered to vote down a ballot and suddenly that 2nd unionist seat is not so secure.

    All that said I don’t see it myself, but it’s just not the zero chance that you make out.

    John,

    London

Comments are closed.