Storm& (apokryfae) wrote,

  • Mood:
  • Music:

After the "Content Strike"

I know that there are some out there who have offered rebuttals to the "Content Strike". Following are my two cents:

1. Indeed, an actual "strike" intends to place pressure on an offending company until such time as a resolution to one's complaint is achieved. I understand this. I wanted to express my opinion of the recent events in this way, regardless.

2. One might notice that none of the perceived organisers of the "Content Strike" are on my f-list. I didn't do this out of peer pressure; rather, I expect that a number of people who are on my f-list are probably wondering WTH I'm on about, in these last two posts.

In short, my reasons, and my choice, to participate are my own. One might assume that because I have a basic (free) account, I have nothing to offer LJ. Outside of whatever content I provide, I also make purchases online and therefore have a value in advertising dollars. Life isn't as simple as "the advertisers pay them" and "yours isn't a paid/ad-supported account so you have no value to them". Whether one's account is paid, ad-supported, or basic (free) has little impact on whether one will patronise the advertisers, and therefore justify their use of LJ as an advertising medium.

Further, even if I don't buy a product myself, that doesn't stop me from referring someone else who will. What will stop me (and has) are the practices of the company in question, and the quality of the product and/or service they provide.
Tags: content strike
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 1 comment