A strike involves not doing your job; no-one (as far as I'm aware) is paid to post to LJ, therefore not posting to LJ is not a strike, and to call it a strike dignifies it in a way it doesn't deserve. While "boycott" isn't perfectly accurate, it's more accurate than "strike". I guess the best term for organising a day of not using a service you've already paid for is "pointless"... :-)
I think people were pissed off for a variety of reasons; calling it a strike annoyed a lot of people (especially anyone who's had anything to do with union politics). The failure to provide a clear explanation of what the action was all about pissed people off. The failure to do anything when LJ addressed the reasons for the action pissed people off. The posting and reposting of whole long screeds, urging people to take part, without proper explanations and without cut-tags pissed people off (admittedly that wasn't the fault of the people organising it, but any political movement will be judged by its follower). The fact that the whole thing involved a large amount of effort which is basically wasted, because it's not going to have any effect, pissed people off and made them want to take the piss.
no subject
I think people were pissed off for a variety of reasons; calling it a strike annoyed a lot of people (especially anyone who's had anything to do with union politics). The failure to provide a clear explanation of what the action was all about pissed people off. The failure to do anything when LJ addressed the reasons for the action pissed people off. The posting and reposting of whole long screeds, urging people to take part, without proper explanations and without cut-tags pissed people off (admittedly that wasn't the fault of the people organising it, but any political movement will be judged by its follower). The fact that the whole thing involved a large amount of effort which is basically wasted, because it's not going to have any effect, pissed people off and made them want to take the piss.