the eye of Nova's mind

For some reason, I can't post responses to folks' posts on LJ. It's rather annoying, as a sometimes poster but often lurker.

Edit: Now I can't even connect to LiveJournal.

For those playing at home, the news post re: FB & Twitter maxxed out at 10K comments. Users have since gone to this entry at lj_releases, as it pertains to the aforementioned update.

It's been ten days, & no one from LJ has officially replied to the near-unified response of the userbase. Not one peep.

I'm in the process of importing my content to Dreamwidth. (Unfortunately, things are not going smoothly due to some encoding issues. I hope to have this resolved by end of week.)

The arrogance of the higher-ups is just amazing.

I understand that you have linked the site to other social networks for exposure. You're thinking of business.

However, as a social networking site yourself, you must understand that your business ultimately is comprised of individuals who use the network & support it in some way, either by viewing ads or paying for accounts.

The only reason people pay for accounts is for the unique options LiveJournal offers. I don't have data to back this up, but I would conjecture that one of the top reasons users have come to &/or remained at LJ is that they have control over their individual accounts.

LJ has a social aspect but is billed as an online diary. In real life, most diaries are private; some even have locks. I for one was pleased when LJ implemented locked posts & filters, as these were ways in which this online journal experience could operate as a diary should.

The fact that now any user who comments on one of my posts can now refer back to my journal's URL, even if that comment originated in a locked entry, by way of this new "feature" of commingling LJ, Facebook & Twitter devastates me. The lack of being able to control my own LJ upsets me terribly. A diary is not a place where violations of privacy should occur. I feel that this business decision of yours has done just that.

I utilize friendslock for several reasons; primarily I want to keep certain posts from being aggregated by companies like Google, but also I have certain friends who are close friends with whom I'd like to share particular content. Both are compromised by the inability to control who or what references my journal.

I have been with LJ for nearly a decade. I have invested countless hours into this site, & I loved it so much that when a chance came for me to sign up as a permanent user, I jumped at it. Now I rue that decision. Indeed, this privacy violation issue is so important to me that I may leave LJ because of it.

Although I am a permanent user & so cannot use money as leverage to bolster my input, I will say this: if this "feature" is not fixed so that users can inhibit what comments to their own journals may be crossposted, I will actively engage in a word-of-mouth campaign urging those who are still active on LJ to move to another site. You've gotten all the money out of me that you will ever see, but I can prevent you from getting more. It is the only way I can boycott your decision.

---

Send your own feedback to LJ here (after clicking the appropriate button).

Also, eljayfeedback has a poll that might make a difference.

I am around but not really, as I must meet Third Wednesday's editorial deadline. I will lurk like a ghost. (Is that cliched? Ghosts commonly lurk, don't they? They also loom quite frequently. Not that I believe in them, but it's interesting to consider in what activities such noncorporeal entities engage.)

I'm sure there's lots of news that will fly under my radar these next few days (though this bit of health news, a breakthrough, really, did catch my eye). Please point me to any bombshells or odd tidbits; I will try to return the favor.

Over in liberal, nbda1997 uses Gran Torino, Clint Eastwood's deft flick, as a parable. Specifically, this person focuses on the main character's flaw of bigotry and expands:

I really believe that political correctness, especially when taken to the extreme that it has in our country today, does very little to ease racial tension. When people are constantly required to edit and censor themselves, they are forced to leave feelings bottled up and frustration grows.

[...] What I am saying is that treating someone who uses a racial slur almost like a criminal is not only unfair, but ultimately gives that racial slur more power. Rather than ostracizing the person, why not just give it right back to them and get the tension out of the way?

I would love to hear what Mr. Eastwood would say to such an argument. The thread takes a twist, though.

I think there needs to be a Bigots Anonymous. Right now, the only outlets for feelings of racial (or sexual, or religious, or gender, or class) superiority funnel toward emphasizing that stance. There needs to be a counterpoint, some venue where persons can meet and, by acknowledging their shame, can come to a point of catharsis and repentance. The shared aspect would be the primary feature, as the nature of bigotry is something that is very personal and private; the remedy, commonsensically, would need to involve renouncement in front of a group.

[Error: unknown template qotd]

Rocky Horror Picture Show is probably my #1 cult classic, followed extraordinarily closely with Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

For fans of the flicks, no explanation is necessary.

Anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss dies at 100: Intellectual reshaped field, was considered father of modern anthropology

Ancient civilization cut path to its own demise: Study: Nasca cleared forests for crops, leading to disruption in ecosystem -- Those lines are amazing, though. I'm not sure if their nonexistent descendents would believe the huge designs were worth it.

Giant crack in Africa may create a new ocean -- Speaking of images, check the one accompanying the article.

Fruit bats use oral sex to prolong the deed: Scientists say behavior represents an X-rated first for adult non-humans -- Fascinating. (Yes, there's video evidence available. Bat porn.)

By the by, I'm rather annoyed, as the posting page displays non-graphically on my dad's computer (where tonight I happen to be). However, other pages render the banner & other images fine, and my friends page looks normal.

Interracial couple denied marriage license: Louisiana justice of the peace cites concerns about any children couple might have

My response: Loving v. Virginia (1967), biatch.

Edit: pgdudda wrote about this in his LJ, too. I left a comment there.

sophiaserpentia discusses Lovecraft and his subtexts.