![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Unsurprisingly, the news that LiveJournal has been sold to a Russian media conglomerate has startled a lot of people.
Some of those are my friends, and some of those friends are planning to move their blogs from LiveJournal.
Now, I've never given LiveJournal a dime in my life. All I have ever had is a basic account, and I don't see that changing. That's because I didn't get into LiveJournal because I wanted to write for the Internet--I'd set up elsewhere if I wanted that. I joined LiveJournal because a number of my friends had LiveJournal accounts, and it gave me an opportunity to let them know how I am, and keep tabs on what's new with them, all in one convenient place.
But even before Six Apart sold LJ, that was changing. Now![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
landley is using his development log as a blog, fadethecat is moving her blog to her own site, and other friends of mine are thinking of boycotting SUP, for various reasons.
This wouldn't affect my blogging, per se. But it will make it more challenging to keep up with my friends. And once that happens....maybe I should move too.
That's more work than I want to think about doing over Christmastime. Arrrgh.
Some of those are my friends, and some of those friends are planning to move their blogs from LiveJournal.
Now, I've never given LiveJournal a dime in my life. All I have ever had is a basic account, and I don't see that changing. That's because I didn't get into LiveJournal because I wanted to write for the Internet--I'd set up elsewhere if I wanted that. I joined LiveJournal because a number of my friends had LiveJournal accounts, and it gave me an opportunity to let them know how I am, and keep tabs on what's new with them, all in one convenient place.
But even before Six Apart sold LJ, that was changing. Now
landley is using his development log as a blog, fadethecat is moving her blog to her own site, and other friends of mine are thinking of boycotting SUP, for various reasons. This wouldn't affect my blogging, per se. But it will make it more challenging to keep up with my friends. And once that happens....maybe I should move too.
That's more work than I want to think about doing over Christmastime. Arrrgh.
annoyed
(no subject)
I personaly enjoy LJ and I really don't give a hoot as to whom owns it. So unless they make major changes or only allow a russian version that I can't understand and make it impossible for me to use, I'm sticking with LJ as all the other blogs that I know of truly suck and aren't as practical when it comes to keeping track of personal old posts & friend's entries, nor even communicating with each other.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Have not tried it yet, though I am thinking of it.
It picks up LJ too, though likely not locked posts.
(no subject)
That would make it useless for me, then, because a lot of my LJ friends write their most interesting stuff in friends-locked posts.
What I'll probably end up doing is getting an RSS feed for those of my friends who leave LiveJournal, and continuing to use LJ for the rest, but thanks for telling me about bloglines--I'll check it out sometime.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Me, I don't care about that, for two reasons. First, the US went through a phase where Big Business and Big Crime were barely inches apart in methods; namely, the first decades of the 20th century. We outgrew that, and I bet the Russians will too, given enough time.
The other reason is that, even if everything SUP's detractors say about "Russian mafia" is true, nothing I individually do will have an impact on LJ. I do not now, nor ever will, have a paid account. I don't even have a Plus account (where you let LJ use your blog as an advertising dump in exchange for greater perks than a Basic account). And if LJ ever seriously inconveniences me, or persists in immoral behavior that I can't tolerate, or demands money from me, I'll go elsewhere then, that's all.
I do think it's great that LJ has brought blogging to Russia. Russia badly needs a culture of ordinary people writing and spreading ideas again, and in the 21st century, the LJ is the way.
(no subject)
During Communist rule, the Russian people absorbed a tremendous amount of propoganda about capitalism; most importantly, that capitalism is theft. After the transition to capitalism and without a cultural background of honesty in business, it's not surprising that many Russian companies had no business ethics. China is the same way.
(And since central planning during Communist rule taught all factory workers and factory managers how to lie to the authorities, it's not surprising that the habit carried over.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Perhaps I'm ignorant of the facts. Were, e.g., General Motors and Ford nearly-criminal enterprises? Did you have Standard Oil in mind, and if so, what made the activity of this company akin to criminal behavior? What about small shopkeepers?
Unionization was highly contentious but that's more akin to class warfare and the clash of competing economic and political views than criminal activity. Although both the bosses and the workers certainly committed crimes.
(no subject)
I may have misspoke. It was not my intent to imply that corporate America and organized crime acted in the same manner, or committed the same wrongs. What I was thinking was that, back in America's turn-of-the-20th century love affair with raw capitalism, corporations and organized criminals both tended to get government to look the other way with money and connections, and both tended to exploit the "little" people. Doesn't matter whether the actual deeds of the organizations involved broke any laws per se; the result was that the poor had few weapons to prevent the rich from benefiting at their expense. To that extent, I suppose Great Britain didn't escape the phenomenon either--consider Dickens' writings about the working class of his day.
Yes, this may have been "class warfare and the clash of competing economic and political views," but it takes on a nasty edge when one side can't properly defend itself.
(no subject)
I always try to consider (but not necessarily excuse) history based on the "truths" of that time. In the early 20th, people had a different view of property rights and of the rights of workers. In England, pre-WWI, workers and others in that class were expected to salute the county squire. In the US, factory workers were just as good as anyone else in theory, but often regarded as a rabble in practice.
And you're entirely correct about the disproportionate power wielded in those days by the factory owners vis-a-vis their workers. On the other hand, breaking that power was accomplished by we diminishing the property rights of the factory owners, something that I still consider foolish. The natural process of finding equilibrium between all parties in the jobs market has yet to recover.
Money and connections... I don't agree that it was worse back then. Let's just say that in 500 BCE, the Greeks in Athens were not immune to this problem. Businesses lining up for handouts of cash as well as special privileges is an old problem, not something exclusive to our time.
(no subject)
You have a point. As I was noting to my husband the other day, the reason most Americans tend to react with instinctive dislike to market-driven or technological solutions to the "oppression" of workers is because such solutions are intermediate or long-term--they may not help individuals who are struggling now. (Not that government-fiat solutions do, but they look more immediate.)
I never said it was. My whole point is that there's a learning curve in adopting industrial technologies, and the early phases can be ugly. The British went through it, we went through it. Now it's Russia's turn. Hopefully, they'll succeed.
(no subject)
My personal reasons for dislike of non-market solutions is that they quickly become an exercise in votes and money — which entity has more cash on hand and how many voters care enough to be swayed to support one side or another. Is there anything more absurd than workers at GM paid $100,000 a year to sit in a room and read the newspaper, because they can't be fired?
(no subject)
That's true, but there's a better reason to dislike them. Non-market solutions usually mean ceding more power to government. I disapprove of solutions that disempower people and make tyranny a bit easier to stomach over the long term.
(no subject)
I view the aggregation of government power to be a slow, almost inevitable process; every once in a while a politician will come along that will reform portions of the system (e.g., Reagan), but the overall trend is fairly clear. I suspect you're more of an optimist.
(no subject)
My impression is that the main difference (and I could be mistaken about this) is that your view sees government as a necessary evil. I take the more libertarian view that any government that does not involve active participation from the governed is implicitly corrupting, and should be eliminated as soon as possible. I don't see this as an optimistic view--quite the opposite.
(no subject)
My current theories of history make me believe that civilization cannot survive without government; the question revolves around the form of government, and you and I are likely in vehement agreement about many points and in mild disagreement about others.
Cathy, I must say that this has been an extremely pleasant exchange of views... perhaps if you visit Chicago for a con we can continue in person sometime. I'm rarely in your neck of the woods, notwithstanding the strong GT presence at your local cons.
(no subject)
I've never been a member of the LP, which I view as an organization hopelessly unequipped to understand why the average American is not getting their message, let alone push their agenda in a useful way.
My personal politics are more libertarian than not, but I see no meaningful way to make more than incremental progress toward a more libertarian society, and the LP sure as hell is not supplying one.
As for my thoughts on Government, Utility of, we might pursue that in person some time, though the only time I've ever been in Chicago for a con was when it was hosting Worldcon.