24April
Staff member Denise Paolucci asks after the purpose of the unofficial resistance community, 
no_lj_ads. Here's our response to her points.
What's the point of posting these "ha ha look at how much these ads suck" type posts?
I cannot speak for Foxfirefey, and their response appears to answer the question. I do believe that any problem may lie in the comments, rather than the (factual and informative) post.
Yes, we know that some of our remnant providers keep putting in inappropriate ads.
This does rather raise the question: why allow third parties to sell advertising on behalf of Six Apart? The only thing to suffer can be the reputation of SA's products. Is the damage to the company's reputation worth more than the loss of income from a small number of commercials?
But posting things like this will do nothing.
I beg to differ: they will remind the three hundred or so viewers of no_lj_ads that there are dubious advertisements floating around the system, and might encourage one or two of them to complain about announcements that they find offensive.
our sales team will try to track down which remnant provider is inserting it ... it's a bitch and a half to even identify which ad people are talking about half the time, much less figure out which network it's coming from.
Again, this is a reason to handle all advertising in-house. Or at least to embed some form of identifier for the advertising bureau (if not the precise advert) in the feedback URL. The lack of quality control speaks volumes to Six Apart's priorities - get the money in first, then provide a nominal mechanism that might allow those offended to complain. I may be wildly misinterpreting what you say, but this does seem to contradict the close control of commercial announcements promised in FAQ 265.
Do you want to work to persuade staff of your points of view
Again, I cannot possibly speak for all on no_lj_ads. It would be good to know that staff were open to other points of view than very short-term monetary gains, but it would be arrogant to assume that their priorities should coincide with mine.
do you not care and just want to talk about how horrible it is that there are ads on LJ?
There is, obviously, some of this banter, and for good reason. The Social Contract between Livejournal and its users states quite clearly that there shall be no commercials. I found it utterly repugnant that Six Apart should unilaterally repudiate that contract within moments of purchasing the site. Later that day, Mena Trott loudly stated that there would be no commercials on Livejournal; if she had issued an equally public apology for breaking her promise, I have missed it.
All of this serves to damage the Six Apart brand. In my view, the company has done itself enough damage that its products simply cannot be trusted to function predictably from one day to the next. The USD 70 I would have spent on paid accounts is a small drop in Six Apart's revenue stream; that I have not knowingly contributed to any product powered by Six Apart might indicate the depth of the betrayal I feel.
it's really hard to engage in a conversation when the apparent goals and motives of the other party keep flipping back and forth like that.
So far as this interested outsider can tell, the ultimate goal of no_lj_ads remains for advertising to be shown precisely to those users who have specifically chosen to see advertising. Not to people who are just browsing, and not to people who do not pay the fee to see the site without commercials. A sub-goal is to hold Six Apart to its hyperbole when advertisements were first introduced, about doing commercials properly, something that (in the view of many contributors) has been quietly and conveniently forgotten.
Underlying this, I think, is a yearning for a better Livejournal, one that once existed but no longer does. When I signed up in early 2003, and unknown to pretty much all its participants, Livejournal was a near-perfect -- no, that's overstating it. Livejournal was a functioning communist society. Those who could afford USD 25 per year would pay their share, would receive some small personal advantages (seven additional icons, slightly faster access, and that was about it), and the karmic advantage of knowing that they had helped to lubricate the wheels of the community. The interests of the community were serviced before the interests of the bankers. It wasn't whizz-bang, it was a bit buggy, but it worked, and pretty much everyone either knew a contributor, or was one themself. From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.
Then Six Apart bought out Mr. Fitzpatrick, and the site's ethos shifted almost overnight to favour the rapid transfer of money, exploiting the writers, making themselves rich while impoverishing everyone else. It's what these capitalists do best, and it's what Six Apart has done very well indeed. Assert title to the servers - the means of production, if you will - and treat the workers as serfs, bonded to the company's largesse.
By so doing, it completely destroys the community that was Livejournal. Six Apart holds its own dogmatic beliefs: greed is good, that money makes the world go round, that the only person who counts is a rich American. And it has imposed these articles of faith on a community that believed in sharing, in not over-extending oneself, and in equality of opportunity.
Though it has tried to do so, Six Apart is not able to abrogate its social contract entirely. It remains a fact that all individuals on Livejournal are equal. No one may impose their will on the rest of the community without the assent of everyone else. Six Apart prefers to create inequalities in the face of general opposition, then do everything in its power to protect the iniquitous situation it has created.
That, I propose, is why no_lj_ads is polite, firm, and completely unyielding on staff such as yourself. You are the public faces of the interlopers, the vandals who came in and imposed their alien values on a well-organised society. It doesn't particularly matter that you, Miss Paolucci, were personally employed by Livejournal before the take-over, for it is clear that Six Apart will not change its ways by itself. The company's founders appear not to realise that social technology works only because of social norms to act with honour; when the servers, the very means of production, are not working in an honourable manner, then utter chaos is the inevitable result.
For the record, this email is also posted to my personal blog. I do not expect a response; if you provide one, I reserve the option to publish it in part or in full.
Best regards,
Iain Weaver
