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.
People aren't paid in money, it's true. (There are paid posting sites out there. I belong to a couple, the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty freaking low.)
But people are contributing to the site and the success of LJ is dependent on lots of people making that unpaid contribution. I repeat my question, what do you call it if a group of people who are providing volunteer contributions withdraw their free labour?
The Food Bank in Toronto depends 100% on donated labour. If they all walked out, I bet you $100 the newspapers would be calling it a strike.
While "boycott" isn't perfectly accurate, it's more accurate than "strike".
Well, I disagree with you. I think boycott specifically refers to refusing to purchase a service. I don't think that's what happened here. As I said to neoliminal I don't think LJ suffered economically, and I don't think that was the intention.
calling it a strike annoyed a lot of people (especially anyone who's had anything to do with union politics).
>>snort<< The only people I saw objecting to the term wouldn't know a collective bargaining agreement if one crawled into their sinuses and took a shit.
The failure to provide a clear explanation of what the action was all about pissed people off.
So pretty much what I thought. "I don't get it and I disagree with it, so I'm going to be an asshole about it."
no subject
People aren't paid in money, it's true. (There are paid posting sites out there. I belong to a couple, the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty freaking low.)
But people are contributing to the site and the success of LJ is dependent on lots of people making that unpaid contribution. I repeat my question, what do you call it if a group of people who are providing volunteer contributions withdraw their free labour?
The Food Bank in Toronto depends 100% on donated labour. If they all walked out, I bet you $100 the newspapers would be calling it a strike.
While "boycott" isn't perfectly accurate, it's more accurate than "strike".
Well, I disagree with you. I think boycott specifically refers to refusing to purchase a service. I don't think that's what happened here. As I said to
calling it a strike annoyed a lot of people (especially anyone who's had anything to do with union politics).
>>snort<< The only people I saw objecting to the term wouldn't know a collective bargaining agreement if one crawled into their sinuses and took a shit.
The failure to provide a clear explanation of what the action was all about pissed people off.
So pretty much what I thought. "I don't get it and I disagree with it, so I'm going to be an asshole about it."