It's not a problem, it's just evidence that it wasn't an attempt to influence LJ's business decisions (as was claimed); it was, essentially, an organised tantrum. Which, yes, is a legitimate form of self-expression if you're into that sort of thing, but it's not exactly something that deserves respect.
It also means that next time LJ pisses people off, and members say "Well, how can we demonstrate our displeasure?", a content boycott is going to be a bit pointless, because LJ have now learned that content strikes are nothing more than organised tantrums, with no bargaining power or even intent.
It _also_ means that the people organising the boycott are disingenuous, to say the least. They claimed that the boycott was about specific issues; clearly it wasn't about those issues, because those issues were addressed before the boycott went ahead.
Finally, it means the whole thing was just thoroughly pointless. Not harmful, just silly.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zvi
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 10:21 pm (UTC)It also means that next time LJ pisses people off, and members say "Well, how can we demonstrate our displeasure?", a content boycott is going to be a bit pointless, because LJ have now learned that content strikes are nothing more than organised tantrums, with no bargaining power or even intent.
It _also_ means that the people organising the boycott are disingenuous, to say the least. They claimed that the boycott was about specific issues; clearly it wasn't about those issues, because those issues were addressed before the boycott went ahead.
Finally, it means the whole thing was just thoroughly pointless. Not harmful, just silly.