(no subject)

Date: 2008-03-22 08:44 pm (UTC)
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 [livejournal.com profile] 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."

If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

the_siobhan: It means, "to rot" (Default)
the_siobhan

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1 23456 7
89101112 1314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags