LiveJournal Rebellion

[dawn_felagund]

Well, we're all very active and idealistic on ye olde LJ today, aren't we? I logged in to find my friends' page overrun with posts about various causes. I'm not complaining. I've been known to do a bit of idealistic ranting myself some days. :)

Anyway, probably the most prevalent post today is the "Gay Rights" post. Because I agree with and like the quote, I am going to post it here as well, though everyone has doubtlessly seen it by now.

"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?"
- Ernest Gaines

Most people have pasted the accompanying part about posting it to show your support or ignoring it to show your lack, but since this has caused problems on the journals of well-meaning people who inadvertantly offended those not prone to post-spam of this sort, I'm going to refrain from that. I don't think that there are any homophobics on my flist anyway. I can't imagine that they'd stay around long, what with me posting slash on a regular basis.

If posting the quote makes you feel as though you are making a positive difference, though, by all means, please post it! I certainly don't mind seeing it around more.

But I'd sooner hear people stop using "gay" as an insult, sooner see people make an effort to become more aware of how they stereotype others not alike to them, and sooner see people have the guts to speak up when some idiot starts their BS about gay people being somehow less of human beings because of their orientation. Perhaps this would lessen the perception that homophobia is okay.

Or maybe posting a thought-provoking quote is a place to start. :)

On a more frivolous--though equally heated--note, there is a petition on LJ to convince LJ not to allow companies to purchase "sponsored accounts" that would allow them to promote their products on LJ. I gave the debate on lj_biz a quick scan, and there seems to be a lot of questions and concerns over this. People fear the power of the Almighty Dollar trumping the rights and wishes of LiveJournal customers.

Having read all of the posts made by the LJ folks and a handful of comments by disgruntled LJ members, I do get the distinct impression that LJ was trying to slide something past us, dressing it up as something that will benefit us as users while really trying to ease past LJ's longstanding commitment to "no ads anywhere!" A commitment that was somewhat broken by instituting the "Plus" accounts that show ads. I know for a fact that sponsored communities were showing up on the front page of LJ for paid users because scienceofsleep showed up on mine for a couple of days as a "Sponsored Community," then disappeared. I remember seeing it and thinking, "Huh. What's this? So now I can get silwritersguild on the front page by handing over some bucks?" Never mind that 99.9% of LJ users won't give a damn about silwritersguild, but money talks more than customer interest, otherwise we would talk to real live people when we call our banks, Internet providers, and credit card companies and our IT concerns would be handled by people who at least spoke our language.

Of course, when the paid users began to complain that they paid not to see adverts--and this includes adverts cloaked as communities--scienceofsleep mysteriously disappeared from my front page. And suddenly, "No, no, no! Paid users won't see this at all unless they choose to see it!" and admission to poor choice of wording on the part of LJ staff (who did, in fact, say that paid users would not be able to avoid seeing sponsored communities listed). However, I saw it for several days, enough to wonder over it, so this makes me immediately skeptical of their honesty on this issue.

Slippery slopes are a dangerous place, but I think that a valid point is made by the folks pointing out the insidious introduction of advertisement onto LiveJournal. First the Plus accounts, now the "sponsored communities"...frankly, I am sick of advertisement, period. I am sick of not being able to go to "Ravens Stadium" but having to go to "M&T Bank Stadium." No, it's not the fucking bank that plays there, it's my damned favorite football team, the Ravens. Or the Republicans who wanted to open national parks to corporate advertisements on the sides of park buildings and buses so that Exxon can dump oil into the sea with one hand and pander to environmentalists with the other. Is there any place left to go where some eejit isn't trying to hawk something at me? I pay $9.25 for a movie ticket (well, really $8.00 since I still have my old UMBC ID card) to sit for the half-hour before the movie starts watching disgusting Sprite commercials of sumo wrestlers smashing a guy's head between their bellies and advert after advert for TV shows where the same startled-looking yuppies somehow go missing. Meh. Let them stay missing, I say.

Advertisement is a necessary evil; I am not so dumb to think otherwise. But as it fills the world more and more, it becomes more and more obnoxious to draw your eye from That Guy's ad to Our Ad. I won't even listen to the radio anymore because I can't stand the blaring, strident ads designed at getting my attention.

So anyway, I signed the petition because LJ, for me, is a community for sharing my thoughts and writing and striking up conversation with like-minded folks and keeping in touch with friends. It is not where I go to watch movie trailers or get free deals, and I think that a good point is made by the folks who bring up that LJ had proclaimed relatively few restrictions for these "sponsored accounts" until a shitstorm was made over the idea that didn't go over quite as well as planned. When companies start throwing big money into a service, those of us who pay our paltry 20 buckaroos per year start to feel understandably nervous of how our rights as customers will shake out next to theirs, and as someone with a fan fiction community, say "Children of Hurin" was made into a movie. Would silwritersguild be made to shut down to give monopoly to the childrenofhurin sponsored community? Surely, they can outbid me.

Anyhoo, those who agree with me or want to read further, check out the petition. And thanks to ithilwen for calling my attention to it! Additionally, the lj_biz community has the posts that have been made about this move and the literally thousands of comments mostly against it.

Comments

[rhapsody11.livejournal.com]

But I'd sooner hear people stop using "gay" as an insult, sooner see people make an effort to become more aware of how they stereotype others not alike to them, and sooner see people have the guts to speak up when some idiot starts their BS about gay people being somehow less of human beings because of their orientation. Perhaps this would lessen the perception that homophobia is okay.

I think the quote is incredible touching & relevant in the light of the recent shooting in Pennsylvania, yeah. There are many things which amaze me about the States...

Anyhow. I am one of the persons who replied to nienna_weeper entry and I was incredibly put off by the last sentence. Before I get my ass flamed off... I'll try to explain again. I said there:

But well because of this it feels as if I would post it, I would be closing my eyes for other, equally important rights which deserve the same amount of spotlight. The right of children to go to school, civil rights over the globe ect ect. It also implies that if I don't choose to post it, I am a gay basher, which is obviously not the case as you (& others) know, so I fully agree with Maldy here. I hope you are not mad at me.

I am more for giving more attention to children's rights to gay rights. I am a big supporter of Warchild (their motto: you can take the child out of a war, but how do you get the war out of a child) because year in year out children (besides women) are victims of wars, riots, border troubles and so on. So instead of seeing one of those posts again, I rather would see posts about that. But yet I won't do it. Because whatever cause you are supporting: everything is equally important. Here gays rights are accepted, constitutional even, people are seen as part as the community, can marry, can adopt, can join the army and what more. The battle has been won. Maybe in the States it is completely different. But I do think this post that went around does singles them out again, place them on an isolated spot and the last sentence is just wrong. Especially for those who are very weary of the whole thing because by now ... it feels so overhyped by now (for me it most certainly feels that way). Is it a cause worth fighting for? Of course it is, but be careful the way how. You can overdo it.

As for LJ, I was the second one in that initial thread to ask what would happen if there would be a conflict of interests if a user or a community posts fan fic. (I am on page 13 or something like that).

I just read this:
So ultimately, our existing policies on copyright and trademark aren't going to change if a sponsor is on LJ; if they want to report icons or screencaps, the copyright holder will always have a legal right to do so. We're neither going to encourage them to do that, nor are we going to discourage them, either. LiveJournal needs to remain neutral in this type of situation, due to existing United States laws. We still have to enforce these laws whether or not we have sponsored communities.

In the case of the Tolkien estate, Addleshaw Goddard is very active in shutting down sites, so I am very doubtful about what is stated above. If you write fan fic, there is always the rule of fair use. If you build a site and your knowlegde database of characters contains more than the actual percentage of the fair use... yeah be careful. Ask the estate for permission first. So I am still worried. The good thing is though that as a paid user there won't be adds to see, but yet again I remain sceptical because they said things before they would never do, but it happened anyway.

[dawn_felagund]

I was incredibly put off by the last sentence. Before I get my ass flamed off... I'll try to explain again.

I specifically removed the last sentence so that you wouldn't feel that you had to explain. :) I am not in the business of making my flist feel that they have to follow what I say or label themselves in an untrue manner.

I also took issue with the last part of the post, though I know that others have interpreted it to mean "if you don't agree, just ignore it and don't start a flame war over this." To me, it read rather black and white: If you agree, you will repost. If you don't, you will ignore. As someone who rarely returns or posts "forwards" in either email or LJ, I can understand how some people were made uncomfortable by this. And as I said in my post and told Isil in the comment above yours, living a tolerant lifestyle is equally or more important than participating in "chains" like this.

At the same time, I do not mean to imply that people who pasted the whole post meant to be hurtful or make this an "either you're with us or against us" sort of issue. There seem to be two ways to read the last part of the post; I walked on the safe side and cut it out entirely. :)

Because whatever cause you are supporting: everything is equally important.

True that. ann_arien said that the post for her is not about gay rights but human rights. For me, my specific support of GLBT issues comes back to your next point:

Maybe in the States it is completely different.

It is. It is very different here. We had a Congresswoman not too long ago stand in front of the nation and say that the biggest threat this country is facing is gay marriage. Because being involved in a ne'erending war, having an economy in the toilet, an administration that routinely lies...none of those things are threats. It's the idea that people of the same gender might be extended the same rights to marry as hetero couples. Really?

So while I am so pleased to see the huge steps that have been made in Europe and elsewhere in the world, for me, the issue is far from over. My own country remains a nation trying to legalize bigotry.

Also, this issue is very personal to me because of my sister. One of the people whom I love most in the world cannot even live freely in her own country right now because of the person that she is. She has to fear holding hands with her wife because if she gets beaten or killed over it, it isn't considered a hate crime and is treated the same as a bar-fight gone bad. She can't marry or adopt children. And there are many jobs where she wouldn't even be allowed to reveal her "identity" as a bisexual woman.

So, yes, I will admit that I will shout louder about this issue than almost any other. And I will probably get on the nerves at times of my European friends who live in more progressive nations. But I ask everyone to keep in mind that, for me, this is an issue very close to home. Someone I love is being attacked every day in this country because of narrowminded views of a few, and so yes, I will speak out, and I do think that it's important. When Sharon can move home if she wants to and live with her wife as a married couple, then maybe I will shut up. But until then, no.

Of course it is, but be careful the way how. You can overdo it.

Well, I'm not really sure that I agree that posting a quote in my journal that totals twenty-one words (including Mr. Gaines' name) and asking people to be aware of how they treat human beings different than themselves is exactly "overdoing it" but okay....

Children of war is an important issue for me too, btw. It was actually my specialty in uni: post-traumatic stress disorder in childhood victims of political violence. I will check out the organization you mentioned. :)

[rhapsodythebard.livejournal.com]

If you don't, you will ignore. As someone who rarely returns or posts "forwards" in either email or LJ, I can understand how some people were made uncomfortable by this.

I know, but I see it coming back and it made me wonder if I did something wrong.

It's the idea that people of the same gender might be extended the same rights to marry as hetero couples. Really?

And therefore 'threatening' a corner stone or basic foundation as a society... to their beliefs. Don't forget that politicians will twitch and turn to follow trends. Just a nice example:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich “This bill is everything we don't believe in.” No Republican spinmeister could have put it better.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060928/1041359.asp

Spinmeister is the correct term here.

We see it here now too with the upcoming elections because the reign of this cabinet has caused a lot of misery. Anyhow. It is brought as a threat, it looks like a threat so it must be a threat? I don't think so. What is wrong with people loving each other? What's next, mixed marriages based on race? I think, honestly, that this reign of fear must end. Because when you look at it from the outside, it is a reign of fear. The new terrorism act is there because as 'Bush says: "We do anything to protect America." The emergency rule or constitual order has become a rule & norm in life and I do think this administration will do anything to stretch the presidents power or even go beyond that. Separation of church and state? Is it there honestly?I think when a state wants to approve gay marriage, then they should allow it but not act from the presidential office because personally the president doesn't like it.

Montesquie and Locke had reasons to come up with that, because: "the separation of powers constrains rulers (be they constitutional monarchs or elected executives) and thereby guarantees, according to Montesquieu, the "tranquillity" that is the political liberty of the individual; the second is secured thanks to the first."

Let good parenting (whether they are gay, straight, bisexual, signle, married, divorced) be the cornerstone/foundation of society. Parents who are happy, content, upbeat and such just make good parents. An economy will thrive if people are optimistic and not when they feel opressed by the 'own' commander in chief. But in order to achieve that, give people the right to do what they believe in and do not set a norm based on your own standards. Being a moral leader of a free country... I think Mr Bush report card will have a 1 regarding that.

My own country remains a nation trying to legalize bigotry.

Which makes it so sad, you know. Dr Martin Luther King would turn around in his grave.
{edit: LJ thinks I am rambling]

[dawn_felagund]

What's next, mixed marriages based on race?

Actually, not so long ago, this battle was fought in the US much along the same lines as the same-sex marriage battle now. Mixed-race marriages were illegal in many states, and the same fundamentalists who oppose same-sex marriage were protesting mixed-race marriage using the same tired rhetoric from the Bible.

So GLBT activists have likened this fight to the fight to legalize mixed-race marriages not so long ago.

The new terrorism act is there because as 'Bush says: "We do anything to protect America."

I get so sick when I think of this, when I read articles like the one you linked. I get so sick to think that people in this country actually approve of this. And what's worse, this slander aimed at opposition that--in the same vein as what this administration has been saying all along--"if you disapprove of this, you're against national security."

Okay. What the fuck.

There is no one in this country who cares more about national security than I do. I live within a half-hour of DC, and a large enough attack could threaten my home. Furthermore, my husband goes to work everyday in an office where he can see the White House from his window. Don't think that the thought of a dirty bomb in the streets of DC and where Bobby will be when that happens doesn't cross my mind every damned day that he goes to work.

But this administration says one thing and does another. While they are berating the Democrats for being "weak on national security," then they are cutting funding to Customs, law enforcement, and first responders. A terrorist cell was found in my hometown of Baltimore. I ask you, who would have had a better chance of finding that cell? A beat cop who noticed unusual activity in the neighborhood, kept an eye on it, and had the appropriate channels to have it investigated? A Customs agent who noticed a strange pattern or got a tip from an agent in the field? Or an aircraft carrier? Yep. So why do we provide unlimited funding for the latter, i.e. the military, and our intelligence and law enforcement communities are starving?

And because I believe in a fair trial does not mean that I am against national security. Putting innocent people in jail or detaining innocent people solves nothing. I honestly believe that these idiots think that the number of brown-skinned people they have in prison in an indicator of how well they are doing in the "war on terror." It's not. It creates a false sense of security while the bad guys roam free, and it means more reason why Moslems have to be pissed off at us. Which fuels the propaganda that Islamic extremists use when recruiting the next set of hijackers or suicide bombers. Which means more terrorists. And nothing is solved.

Separation of church and state? Is it there honestly?I think when a state wants to approve gay marriage, then they should allow it

Yeah, it exists in theory, but when half of the elected representatives are in the pockets of the Christian Coalition, then it does not hold for long.

And Republicans, again...a bunch of hypocrites. There are certain things that are supposed to be managed by the states and certain things by the feds. Marriage has always been one of them. Every state has different marriage laws. And Republicans are supposedly founded on protecting the rights of states to make their own decisions. When it comes to abortion or gun control, feds are told, "Hands off!" But now when a national law would benefit them, suddenly they no longer care about the rights of states to make their own decisions.

And it should be a state decision. States have always presided over marriage except in instances (like mixed-race marriage) where denying marriage violates the Constitution. In terms of same-sex marriage, that's a fight for another day, but in the meanwhile, this crap about how states shouldn't be allowed to decide this issue...it's just wrong.

rramble

[rhapsodythebard.livejournal.com]

And I will probably get on the nerves at times of my European friends who live in more progressive nations.

and

Well, I'm not really sure that I agree that posting a quote in my journal that totals twenty-one words (including Mr. Gaines' name) and asking people to be aware of how they treat human beings different than themselves is exactly "overdoing it" but okay....

I know that, but I wonder about the effectiveness of it, especially the post (which you edited) in question. Why did it evoke such reactions? Did it damage the cause (see myspace) or not? Will it reach your states representative? Or your leader? Will 2008 come too late? With a president like this and his administration I think you have to act now. For the two parties which I associate myself the most with, I can go to the party leaders blog and leave my concerns there.

Right now teens associate the term gay with euww no way, how much can be taught now by showing those kids the true story of how it feels like to be gay and how they aren't so much different than your neighbours. Showing, sharing, educating and teaching them to look beyond a word is important.

Marian Wright Edelman: "A lot of people are waiting for Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi to come back but they are gone. We are it. It is up to us. It is up to you."

I somehow can't help to wonder what would have happened if Gore won the elections you know. Hmmm nice soap box LOL

Just a small sidenote, over here things aren't perfect. Last week in the debate our PM said that we should go back to the VOC (Dutch East India Company) mentatlity during the golden century, which basically means going back to selling people into slavery, allowing slavery as a standard, simply invading and claiming the lands of other countries as ours.. I don't think we should go back to that. So we do have ruling idiots here too.. but soon precious... soon!

Oh and {{{hugs}}}

Re: rramble

[dawn_felagund]

I know that, but I wonder about the effectiveness of it, especially the post (which you edited) in question. Why did it evoke such reactions? Did it damage the cause (see myspace) or not?

I don't think that the post--even the original version--turned anyone who was for same-sex marriage against the cause. (Though I don't use MySpace, so I can't speak to what went on there.) The issue as I saw it was with the rather demanding tone of the original version that conveyed a "with us or against us" sort of attitude. This naturally turns people off because everyone chooses to express their beliefs differently, and someone who supports same-sex marriage might not necessarily feel compelled to repost this particular meme.

I think it's really unfortunate that the quote in this post has been often ignored in favor of the less-than-perfectly-worded plea to "REPOST OR ELSE!!!" after it. The quote is wonderful and thought-provoking especially--as you said--in light of all of the school shootings that have been going on in the US lately. But that is why I cut that part of the post; because I wanted the quote to shape people's perceptions and the discussion afterward. Unfortunately, I think I came in after the damage had been done. :) *shakes fist at work comp that will not allow LJ-posting from work*

Will it reach your states representative?

Probably not, but that really wasn't the point for me in this particular instance. Actually, I live in one of the most liberal states in the country, so most of my representatives (perhaps all) would vote in favor of same-sex marriage. And I do vote, and I would not vote for someone who made it part of his or her platform to be opposed of same-sex marriage.

The point of this post for me was to reach someone other than goverment representatives because I think that two kinds of change are needed in this country right now. Yes, the law needs to change. But perhaps more importantly, minds need to change because the people elect the representatives that make the laws. The representatives are (supposedly) only doing what the people want, so until the people realize that homosexuals aren't evil and same-sex marriage will not spell our downfall, then the law will not change.

Most of my flist is for same-sex marriage. (I would say "all," but I don't want to assume!) At the same time, people who are not on LJ or my flist do read my journal. One mind changed is a powerful thing. One mind changed strongly enough means another voice to change more minds. That is my hope in posting such quotes and discussions on my LJ: not because I believe that Bush will read my LJ and be persuaded to my side (even if he was, the people who fund his campaign would not tolerate it, and money speaks louder than ethics in too many instances) but to maybe catch the eye of a visitor who might be undecided on the issue or even against it and maybe change a mind.

Also, it is to eliminate the feeling--in the US anyway--that those of us who are straight and care for GLBT issues are a slim minority. tarion_anarore said something that really impressed upon me when we were discussing this quote in her LJ: that she often feels like the only person who supports same-sex marriage. Yet a poll of the country shows that something like 60% now do support it. But our voices aren't as loud as the fundamentalists creating the impression that all of America hates gays, and the power of social influence and perceived popular opinion is profound. If we change that perception that it's "okay to hate gays 'cause most people do," then I think that many minds--and then the laws--will follow.

So we do have ruling idiots here too.. but soon precious... soon!

It's the "grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" mentality: Every country looks good but the one you're in! :^D But everyone has problems.

America has it's (big) problems, but we'll work through them. I have faith in this.

And of course: {{{{{hugs back}}}}} Thanks for listening to me rant & ramble! :)

Oops, ran out of room! :^P

[dawn_felagund]

The good thing is though that as a paid user there won't be adds to see, but yet again I remain sceptical because they said things before they would never do, but it happened anyway.

I was put off by the way that the whole thing came about, having spent most of last night reading the lj_biz comm and some of the comments left on posts. I think that if LJ had come right out and said, "Look, it's economically feasible for us to start this, but we want you to know that we have implemented this, this, and this to protect our userbase and we are taking measures to limit the exposure paid users will have," then they would have been a lot better off.

But they came out and said, "Hey guys, here are these awesome features that you're going to love and they're being paid for by these companies that you're going to love too!" as though we were expected to simply go along and say, "Yay! LJ says we're going to love it, so it must be okay!" No. When you bring big bucks into what has always been a free or low-cost community, people are going to get scared, kind of like finding out that a WalMart is moving into the neighborhood. Yeah, there might be lots of good to go with that WalMart, but how many little guys are going to be closed or suffer to make way for it?

Secondly, scienceofsleep did appear on the LJ homepage to me for several days, and I am a paid user. What this says to me is that they didn't take their promise to paid users of "no ads evah since you pay" into account and tried to slip it beneath the radar. Only when hullabaloo was made was it removed from the page when I am signed in. This makes me distrustful right off the bat.

Thirdly, all of the rules--some of which are very good--were put into place only after thousands of posts complaining and protesting. These things should have been taken care of right away, before the plan was even announced to users. While I am not sure that I agree with the people insisting that LJ should have polled their userbase first (since a business sometimes must act in a business's best interest and a customer can't possibly know all that goes into that), I don't think that it would have been a bad idea to discuss it with some users and community leaders, sort of a focus group. The issues that they are only now addressing seem like no-brainers to me, and it--again--leaves me wondering: Is LJ really that naive or were they really trying to pull something over on us?

I can't believe that they could be so naive not to set rules in place, for example, for sponsored comms spamming users and regular communities with posts.

Or maybe I'm just getting old and cynical. :)

Re: Oops, ran out of room! :^P

[rhapsodythebard.livejournal.com]

But they came out and said, "Hey guys, here are these awesome features that you're going to love and they're being paid for by these companies that you're going to love too!" as though we were expected to simply go along and say, "Yay! LJ says we're going to love it, so it must be okay!" No.

Oh I know that, I read and replied. It is bad enough when the founder of Livejournal has to sweep in for damage control. To put a nice ribbon around it and make it look good doesn't fool the long members and supporters of LJ. To put it bluntly: we felt screwed.

Secondly, scienceofsleep did appear on the LJ homepage to me for several days, and I am a paid user.

I can't help to read scienceofsheep here LOL. I have a different login screen bookmarked, so I never was confronted with it. What I didn't agree with is them telling about products where they work with a company on it, it will costs me more money because I don't live in the states. LJ suddenly doesn't feel international to me anymore. Myspace never felt that way, but in a way, lj always felt international, but now that they are gearing up to american companies only.. yeah. So I think I am gonna play with Vox more.

While I am not sure that I agree with the people insisting that LJ should have polled their userbase first (since a business sometimes must act in a business's best interest and a customer can't possibly know all that goes into that), I don't think that it would have been a bad idea to discuss it with some users and community leaders, sort of a focus group.

Here I have a different view on it. I do believe strongly in this. A focus group can never represent all. If someone says: you have been asking for this... I will say: no I have not. If you want to develop a good service, you will have a fine--tuned service if you do listen to your user base. A focus group will most likely only have pioneers and early adaptors, but they will never represent your user base fully.

I wonder how easy it would have been if they simply set up a couple of polls in lj_biz. It would have made the whole process more transparent to begin with. It doesn't have to be complicated, but the way this went that they even dídn't care to begin with until folks (the paid users mostly) started to scream murder.

The issues that they are only now addressing seem like no-brainers to me, and it--again--leaves me wondering: Is LJ really that naive or were they really trying to pull something over on us?

I can't say. What I did see over the course of a year alone is a change in how they talked with their users. More distant. What has surfaced now is that you do see the company six apart shining through more and that the industry has discovered LJ as a way to advertise and harvest user data from.

Or maybe I'm just getting old and cynical. :)

Maglor says you are a wonderful young flower. ;)