Bad community "management"

[snowninja7]

In case you haven't heard, LJ just went on a massive journal-deleting spree at the behest of a small bunch of fairly scary fundies. Some of the journals clearly should have been deleted; some clearly shouldn't have. The common thread: incest, rape, etc in the interest list

Comments

[dr_tectonic]

FWIW, the post two below yours on my friends page is from the LJ news feed, saying, basically, "we really screwed up, we apologize, here's what went wrong and here's how we're trying to fix it." So you may be able to save a stamp.

[jered]

I read that news post, and I don't think it addresses the issue. Basically, Barak is saying, "oops, we acted too quickly, we're going to go back and review the journals we suspended now." That's good.

But, Barak completely fails to address:
1) The shoot first, ask questions later policy,
2) The policy justification from the "legal department" that "if a journal profile contains interests that support illegal activity, we must suspend the journal."

Unless they publicly revise policy #2 above, which is in direct conflict to a lot of much more reasoned legal advice, then they're still acting in bad faith.

[dr_tectonic]

I imagine they will revise their policies. But they'd be fools to do it right away, without a lot of careful reasoning about what they want to accomplish and how best to do it. I mean, isn't that exactly what got them into this situation in the first place?

[jered]

I'm not so sure -- the CEO message seems to say more that the policy was badly executed, rather than that the policy was wrong. But, I'll keep my fingers crossed...