as i inspect the car crash...

[rone]

... that is the comments on Brad's acquisition announcement, i have concluded that:

• People can't be bothered to read something before opening their goddamn yap and asking a question that was already answered in the announcement.
• DRAMA!  SELF-RIGHTEOUS OUTRAGE!  ANGST!  These people probably need a hydraulic speculum to open their asses when they go do #2.
• Mocking these people is fun, although it doesn't hold a candle to the mid-`90s on Usenet.

Oh well, at least it entertains me.

Comments

Re: as i inspect the car crash...

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

hey! you don't know me; it's russ's fault that i came here.

people also have apparently never read the original ToS because now they're foaming at the mouth about the new one.

and all the stuff they're kvetching about was in the ToS already for ages.

reading comprehension. i know you recommended it already today, but maybe there should be a section in the ToS, and instead of a captcha there ought to be a skill testing question before one can create an account.

[nothings.livejournal.com]

It's kind of amusing, if you go look at brad's personal journal, his post about it gripes about anyone who might accuse him of selling out, when, in fact, that's pretty much exactly what he did.

Also, the company behind LJ (i.e. brad) has gone with a general corporate culture, sort of like Google's "don't be evil", which has been open source and community-friendly and free-user-friendly and all that rot. While he can say all he wants about how awesome Six Apart is and how they totally get that and will preserve it, the whole point is that by selling the company, he's lost control of that, and who can say for sure what those people will do, in the short run or the long run. (E.g. maybe they sell THEIR company to someone who sells THEIR company to a bunch of suits who wreck things.)

I don't see it as the sky falling, but I do see it as him picking lots of money over preserving LJ exactly the way he likes it, and it totally seems worth calling him on that.

None of which strictly applies to your particular gripe about the reaction.

[wisn.livejournal.com]

What strikes me, from reading lj_maintenance is how much money and personnel time LJ must be burning: A staff of three or four are both supporting tens of thousands of users and pretty nearly constantly (incidents at least once per week for the past few weeks) replacing and upgrading servers and networking hardware. Being able to pad their wallet will help prepare for the day that there aren't enough $2.50/month users to support all the freeloaders.

I'm sympathetic with Brad being forced to decide between becoming a platform developer or corporate manager and choosing the one he's happier with. Judging from his remorse in previous announcements about surrendering his absolute control of LJ to new staff hires, I don't imagine he's thrilled about selling off the whole package.

[nothings.livejournal.com]

LJ isn't padding its wallet, though. Brad personally profits, while the new owners of LJ have sunk EXTRA money into LJ for no visible gain (just owning LJ, and having Brad work for them).

Now, maybe the "corporate parent" has more available resources to throw at it, but that doesn't make sense in the long run--that's just a way for them to lose money.

And, yeah, I sympathize with his frustration over managing and running the business vs. developing. Hopefully that's really all that the change will amount to--he'll have some more professional people handling that stuff. But there are no guarantees. It's not AOL buying Nullsoft, but it's also not a patron giving him a million bucks (an invented number) and asking nothing in return.

[arian1.livejournal.com]

If you don't understand that the reason you start a company even one that promotes itself as a community, is to make money, then you've been lied to. Sure, I am completely sure that Brad iasa good guy, and started this with the best intentions, but to people honestly believe that he never intended to gain some return on his investment eventually? Seriously. I think a lot of the users (Not you persay) need to pull their heads out of the fog that is "idealism".

[arafel2.livejournal.com]

but to people honestly believe that he never intended to gain some return on his investment eventually?

Exactly as it says in his post, Danga is a company and exists to make money. Just not quite as rapaciously as some others.

[richtermom.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'd have to say that if people are only starting companies to make money and that's all, that the entrepreneurial spirit is dead. If a positive return is REQUIRED on all ventures, capitalism is doomed. There must be something else - personal contentment, satisfaction of accomplishment, egotism -- that makes the head guy get out of bed in the morning when cash flow hasn't started and venture capital people won't return your calls but the bank does, because you're $0.50 away from being overdrawn and payroll is this week.

It's only after the energy and adrenaline and control diminish that the life investment begins to need a more worldly payback.

[richtermom.livejournal.com]

Okay, what freaking timezone is this on?

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Each post is set to the timezone that the poster inhabits. All comments are GMT.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

(E.g. maybe they sell THEIR company to someone who sells THEIR company to a bunch of suits who wreck things.)

You mean the way Hiway bought Best, turned around and sold themselves to Verio? God damn their black souls.

[arian1.livejournal.com]

I miss the days of Usenet fun. Alas.



Nazi.

[nyar.livejournal.com]

Yup, that's exactly what I thought they'd be. Thankfully you've provided a very concise summary so I am not forced to look myself.

[erikagillian.livejournal.com]

" * People can't be bothered to read something before opening their goddamn yap and asking a question that was already answered in the announcement.
...
* Mocking these people is fun, although it doesn't hold a candle to the mid-`90s on Usenet."

Ok, these two statements confuse me. Since you've been on usenet longer than dirt, the first statement seems a given.

and how am I supposed to quote things on lj? Is there an lj equivalent to ark so I can lurk as people mock stupid behavior on lj like I did on Usenet so I can learn the real rules?

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Well, the comment mechanism now has a "quote" button; highlight text, click the button, and it appears between quotes. Pretty lame. I stick with <i></i> tags, i guess.

And you're right about the two statements being confusing because it should be a given. I just keep expecting better, i guess.

The real rules of LJ:
1) Nobody talks about LJ
2) Don't link to locked entries
3) Use a cut tag when you're doing a lame quiz (which can also contain broken HTML) or meme or your entry is WAY TOO FRICKIN LONG
4) Pay for another year's worth on my account because it's expiring in a month
5) Send me chocolate
6) NO ANIME SMILIES — EVER

[erikagillian.livejournal.com]

is that when putting up the results of the quiz? or one of those that you can do from the lj? In other words, must I go back and cut tag a bunch of posts?

and I knew that civilization was ending but... anime smilies? That's surely the final sign of the rise of the anti-christ.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

I still go back and forth on the question of how long a text entry needs to be before it goes behind a cut. The LJ tradition seems to be to cut them off relatively early, but in the non-LJ world of blogs, many seem to have decided that you should inline much more lest you irritate people with the extra click. On the other hand, non-LJ blogs are different because there are no friends lists; one aggregates with RSS, and the length cutoff for syndication and the length cutoff on your blog are effectively independent.

In any event, for text entries I tend to go longer before lj-cutting than most LJers do. (But entries with big images in them always get the cut.)

[schwa242.livejournal.com]

I do like the new Frank picture.