There are always twenty-three sides.
8 Aug 2007 09:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouI'm not sure if the wank is settling down, but given thoughtful comments by others -- ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
hinotori, raletha, among them -- it seemed proper to elaborate (and clarify) some of what I'd written, and revise where new information's present.
First, Ral raised the point that legally, service providers are not liable for the content stored on their servers, as argued (and won) in several cases, several of which she cited. I wanted to make it clear that this wasn't what I meant, at least, when I raised the DEA/FBI analogies, which I think still hold. The Feds will not arrest you and cart you off to jail if your tenant, unbeknownst to you, is building a methlab in the basement. The Feds are not 'arresting' you when they confiscate your house, nor are they holding you 'liable' -- they are confiscating property used in the commission of a crime.
Indemnity -- via agreement, or via sheer ignorance -- still won't protect you when the Feds paperwork over your servers in an attempt to discover whether a Massive!Child!Porn!Ring! is being perpetrated in a flocked, limited-access community. The Feds will expect you to -- and can force you to -- cooperate with their investigation. Indemnity may eventually protect you from being charged with distribution of child pornography across state lines, but it won't protect you from a charge of obstruction of a Federal investigation if you balk, nor will it protect you from the all-too-real threat of business damage when thirty-five thousand other users are knocked off a server because the Fed's shut down all access.
When the LJ-employee says, "once we're aware of content that's illegal that's on our site, we have to get rid of it or risk being liable ourselves" -- she's right, actually. If you become aware someone's using your car to distribute pot, either you stop it, or you've become an accessory. Once you have knowledge of a illegal event, you become liable -- as a business, as much as you would if, as an individual, you stood and watched a rape and did nothing.
The real issue under this semi-tangential comment, though, isn't the legal nitty-gritty. Instead, it's this:
Who the fuck is doing the speaking for LJ, anyway?
Because this is -- of anywhere on the 'net, this is it -- the place where who knows how many thousands of people are well aware that if you name your employers, it's always possible that somehow, those employers will find you, and regardless of your commentary, will fire you just for admitting you work for them. Don't say where you work, don't name who you work for, watch your privacy, because otherwise it will come back to bite you on the ass -- as it has, for many a (former) employee.
So why the hell is LJ being so stupid as to allow -- as publicly-recognized names -- their employees to respond, willy-nilly? Why are the employees willing to take that on? Do they not have a clue about the confusion this creates? What kind of corporate environment allows an employee with no official standing to speak for the business?
I'm thinking, I'm thinking, and I... well, can't think of a single example: because the answer is NONE OF THE SMART ONES.
There's a reason companies have PR departments that provide press releases, that companies have Spokespeople, that companies have Legal Counsel. When you hear that Designated Speaker reply on a topic, you know you're hearing from someone who not only is expected to know (or at least know the party line), but is allowed to speak of what they know, as a Formal, Official Representative. "Unnamed sources at the White House" ain't got half the credibility of "White House Press Secretary" when it comes to giving validity, and weight, to the statements.
I don't want a press release from some source I can't validate, some pinhead named Chica-whatever, or Buzz-whatever, or Tubular-whatever. I want a source that's named "LJ_Legal_Dept" or "6A_Legal" or "LJ-PublicRelations" or something, y'know, that sounds like Official Source, that exists outside LJ's community and squarely inside LJ's corporate structure.
I don't want to be getting answers from someone who says they're an LJ person and qualified to speak, but have no other identification that I can readily see and therefore -- at least at first and second blush -- I'm forced to just 'accept' that this person really is who they say they are. And not, y'know, some damn sockpuppet.
I don't want to be getting answers from someone who just might have permission to post a reply but is, behind the keyboard, some 20-year old community college pinhead who couldn't tell a legal technicality from a frickin' hole in the wall. I want someone Higher In the Ranks, someone with education and training in the topics they're claiming to provide answers on.
I don't want -- assuming the PR person knows not of the technicals -- to be told in the PR person's own words, with random misspellings and colloquial speech and don't even try to give me emoticons, buddy. I want a PR person like the ones from universities and hospitals, who confer with the experts and relay the decision, as a decision made by those identified experts. Instead of "we have to do this or we're liable," I want: "Our legal department considered the issue carefully. "Given the ambiguity of the laws, the best course is to remove any illegal material, once found." If we don't, we may risk charges against 6A, as accessories." Or however the legal department -- in all their convoluted, complex glory -- actually phrased it -- but what I'm saying is that if the spokesperson is not an expert him/herself, then I want to see cited quotes.
That's what I want.
I am not, frankly, impressed by the reports (and first-hand witnessing) of LJ/6A's bad handling, because I know what a struggle it can be when trying to set policy despite the sluggish recalcitrance that can be The Customers. This is 99% of the reason that when things Go Bad in public relations for a company, the company's first message is to the employees: PLEASE SHUT YOUR FRICKIN TRAP.
Because if you think it's hard to fix a situation when the company's flailing for a good path, it's a thousand times harder when your employees are running around with different versions -- or worse, sitting in a bar joking about the company's actual versus visible intentions. It doesn't matter that the employees say, "Oh, I'm just talking for myself, I'm not official or anything--" because when an employee marks him/herself as an employee, in the eyes of the customer, there's immediate, automatic credibility right there: this person is on the inside.
And then the employee opens his mouth (or puts hands on the keyboard) and takes down not just his own credibility, but the company's as well. You only get the free pass of "he doesn't speak for the company" once. After that, the second the next employee opens his/her mouth, you know what you look like, in the eyes of the customer?
An out-of-control corporate environment that can't manage its staff of six yr olds well enough to get them to stop with the goddamn gossip and get their asses back to work.
How many different LJ employees have weighed in, so far, with jokes or emoticons or attempts at clarification that were anything but, or just general confusing uselessness that really ended up only communicating that the employees themselves (or at least that specific employee) is/are really confused?
I mean, bloody hell: how do you know that [lj user=LJ-employee-yes-really] isn't just the frickin' receptionist? He might have every reason to be confused about what's going on in the Abuse Team Meetings, if he's not even bloody well on the same floor, let alone privy to their policies. But here he is, oh-so-helpful Mister "I'm an LJ employee, I can answer that question!" Mouth, and we're supposed to take this as gospel -- or be understanding rather than indignant when Mr. Mouth is revealed to be spouting nothing more than gossip?
When I write a personal email, when I chat on the phone, when I have a drink with a friend, I am speaking as Me. If, during those points, I speak of work, I speak as an Individual.
When I am in a meeting, talking to a client, or preparing a report on the current project, I am not speaking as Me. I am speaking as the Business Process Analyst for the development team. I cite developer responses as additional justification to my own expertise, and I do not sign my emails or introduce myself as Sol. I sign and introduce with my name followed by my title, because -- for all intents and purposes of my role as the client-facing voice of authority for the team -- I am the role, far more than I am a personal name.
The clients have no interest in my kitchen renovation, or my dogs, or what I think of a movie, no more than is needed to break the ice at the beginning of a meeting as we settle in -- once things start and I am speaking from the platform of my role, to insist on mixing the personal Me with the corporate Role is both inappropriate for the situation and an abuse of my authority: the client does not care about my dogs. The client wants his project done, on time, and correctly. The client does not want to hear me joke, "oh, I just hate developing things for stupid people." The client wants to hear his project is important, and that I will devote all promised time and effort to ensuring it's successful.
What I think personally, and how I interact with life as an individual, has no place in the time I'm giving an authoritative response. The personal is not the corporate, nor should it be allowed to be. All you do is irritate and confuse the client, and do that enough and soon you ain't got no clients.
Does this make sense to anyone, or am I alone in my corporate sense of why I think LJ/6A needs to start firing some people? Or why I think they should stop flailing on 'policies for dealing with fandom' and pay more attention to developing 'policies for dealing with employees with big frickin' mouths who don't seem to know their head from their asshole and need to shut the hell up and let the officially-designated Corporate Spokesperson do the talking'?
As a former business owner, I know it's hard to change policy and still please everyone. You can't do it.
As a customer, I really wish LJ would yank its head out of the sand, and:
strictly and severely enforce a separation of personal-LJ accounts from work-related LJ accounts
fire (or demote) all self-identified employees from this point forward who violate the personal/corporate division
designate an official role-based account to release PR/policy communications to its subscribers
give a fair accounting of recent (and intended) changes, via an Authority invested with whatever shreds of credibility LJ/6A retains by now.
I'd also like world peace, but I guess now's not the time to ask.
hinotori, raletha, among them -- it seemed proper to elaborate (and clarify) some of what I'd written, and revise where new information's present. First, Ral raised the point that legally, service providers are not liable for the content stored on their servers, as argued (and won) in several cases, several of which she cited. I wanted to make it clear that this wasn't what I meant, at least, when I raised the DEA/FBI analogies, which I think still hold. The Feds will not arrest you and cart you off to jail if your tenant, unbeknownst to you, is building a methlab in the basement. The Feds are not 'arresting' you when they confiscate your house, nor are they holding you 'liable' -- they are confiscating property used in the commission of a crime.
Indemnity -- via agreement, or via sheer ignorance -- still won't protect you when the Feds paperwork over your servers in an attempt to discover whether a Massive!Child!Porn!Ring! is being perpetrated in a flocked, limited-access community. The Feds will expect you to -- and can force you to -- cooperate with their investigation. Indemnity may eventually protect you from being charged with distribution of child pornography across state lines, but it won't protect you from a charge of obstruction of a Federal investigation if you balk, nor will it protect you from the all-too-real threat of business damage when thirty-five thousand other users are knocked off a server because the Fed's shut down all access.
When the LJ-employee says, "once we're aware of content that's illegal that's on our site, we have to get rid of it or risk being liable ourselves" -- she's right, actually. If you become aware someone's using your car to distribute pot, either you stop it, or you've become an accessory. Once you have knowledge of a illegal event, you become liable -- as a business, as much as you would if, as an individual, you stood and watched a rape and did nothing.
The real issue under this semi-tangential comment, though, isn't the legal nitty-gritty. Instead, it's this:
Who the fuck is doing the speaking for LJ, anyway?
Because this is -- of anywhere on the 'net, this is it -- the place where who knows how many thousands of people are well aware that if you name your employers, it's always possible that somehow, those employers will find you, and regardless of your commentary, will fire you just for admitting you work for them. Don't say where you work, don't name who you work for, watch your privacy, because otherwise it will come back to bite you on the ass -- as it has, for many a (former) employee.
So why the hell is LJ being so stupid as to allow -- as publicly-recognized names -- their employees to respond, willy-nilly? Why are the employees willing to take that on? Do they not have a clue about the confusion this creates? What kind of corporate environment allows an employee with no official standing to speak for the business?
I'm thinking, I'm thinking, and I... well, can't think of a single example: because the answer is NONE OF THE SMART ONES.
There's a reason companies have PR departments that provide press releases, that companies have Spokespeople, that companies have Legal Counsel. When you hear that Designated Speaker reply on a topic, you know you're hearing from someone who not only is expected to know (or at least know the party line), but is allowed to speak of what they know, as a Formal, Official Representative. "Unnamed sources at the White House" ain't got half the credibility of "White House Press Secretary" when it comes to giving validity, and weight, to the statements.
I don't want a press release from some source I can't validate, some pinhead named Chica-whatever, or Buzz-whatever, or Tubular-whatever. I want a source that's named "LJ_Legal_Dept" or "6A_Legal" or "LJ-PublicRelations" or something, y'know, that sounds like Official Source, that exists outside LJ's community and squarely inside LJ's corporate structure.
I don't want to be getting answers from someone who says they're an LJ person and qualified to speak, but have no other identification that I can readily see and therefore -- at least at first and second blush -- I'm forced to just 'accept' that this person really is who they say they are. And not, y'know, some damn sockpuppet.
I don't want to be getting answers from someone who just might have permission to post a reply but is, behind the keyboard, some 20-year old community college pinhead who couldn't tell a legal technicality from a frickin' hole in the wall. I want someone Higher In the Ranks, someone with education and training in the topics they're claiming to provide answers on.
I don't want -- assuming the PR person knows not of the technicals -- to be told in the PR person's own words, with random misspellings and colloquial speech and don't even try to give me emoticons, buddy. I want a PR person like the ones from universities and hospitals, who confer with the experts and relay the decision, as a decision made by those identified experts. Instead of "we have to do this or we're liable," I want: "Our legal department considered the issue carefully. "Given the ambiguity of the laws, the best course is to remove any illegal material, once found." If we don't, we may risk charges against 6A, as accessories." Or however the legal department -- in all their convoluted, complex glory -- actually phrased it -- but what I'm saying is that if the spokesperson is not an expert him/herself, then I want to see cited quotes.
That's what I want.
I am not, frankly, impressed by the reports (and first-hand witnessing) of LJ/6A's bad handling, because I know what a struggle it can be when trying to set policy despite the sluggish recalcitrance that can be The Customers. This is 99% of the reason that when things Go Bad in public relations for a company, the company's first message is to the employees: PLEASE SHUT YOUR FRICKIN TRAP.
Because if you think it's hard to fix a situation when the company's flailing for a good path, it's a thousand times harder when your employees are running around with different versions -- or worse, sitting in a bar joking about the company's actual versus visible intentions. It doesn't matter that the employees say, "Oh, I'm just talking for myself, I'm not official or anything--" because when an employee marks him/herself as an employee, in the eyes of the customer, there's immediate, automatic credibility right there: this person is on the inside.
And then the employee opens his mouth (or puts hands on the keyboard) and takes down not just his own credibility, but the company's as well. You only get the free pass of "he doesn't speak for the company" once. After that, the second the next employee opens his/her mouth, you know what you look like, in the eyes of the customer?
An out-of-control corporate environment that can't manage its staff of six yr olds well enough to get them to stop with the goddamn gossip and get their asses back to work.
How many different LJ employees have weighed in, so far, with jokes or emoticons or attempts at clarification that were anything but, or just general confusing uselessness that really ended up only communicating that the employees themselves (or at least that specific employee) is/are really confused?
I mean, bloody hell: how do you know that [lj user=LJ-employee-yes-really] isn't just the frickin' receptionist? He might have every reason to be confused about what's going on in the Abuse Team Meetings, if he's not even bloody well on the same floor, let alone privy to their policies. But here he is, oh-so-helpful Mister "I'm an LJ employee, I can answer that question!" Mouth, and we're supposed to take this as gospel -- or be understanding rather than indignant when Mr. Mouth is revealed to be spouting nothing more than gossip?
When I write a personal email, when I chat on the phone, when I have a drink with a friend, I am speaking as Me. If, during those points, I speak of work, I speak as an Individual.
When I am in a meeting, talking to a client, or preparing a report on the current project, I am not speaking as Me. I am speaking as the Business Process Analyst for the development team. I cite developer responses as additional justification to my own expertise, and I do not sign my emails or introduce myself as Sol. I sign and introduce with my name followed by my title, because -- for all intents and purposes of my role as the client-facing voice of authority for the team -- I am the role, far more than I am a personal name.
The clients have no interest in my kitchen renovation, or my dogs, or what I think of a movie, no more than is needed to break the ice at the beginning of a meeting as we settle in -- once things start and I am speaking from the platform of my role, to insist on mixing the personal Me with the corporate Role is both inappropriate for the situation and an abuse of my authority: the client does not care about my dogs. The client wants his project done, on time, and correctly. The client does not want to hear me joke, "oh, I just hate developing things for stupid people." The client wants to hear his project is important, and that I will devote all promised time and effort to ensuring it's successful.
What I think personally, and how I interact with life as an individual, has no place in the time I'm giving an authoritative response. The personal is not the corporate, nor should it be allowed to be. All you do is irritate and confuse the client, and do that enough and soon you ain't got no clients.
Does this make sense to anyone, or am I alone in my corporate sense of why I think LJ/6A needs to start firing some people? Or why I think they should stop flailing on 'policies for dealing with fandom' and pay more attention to developing 'policies for dealing with employees with big frickin' mouths who don't seem to know their head from their asshole and need to shut the hell up and let the officially-designated Corporate Spokesperson do the talking'?
As a former business owner, I know it's hard to change policy and still please everyone. You can't do it.
As a customer, I really wish LJ would yank its head out of the sand, and:
I'd also like world peace, but I guess now's not the time to ask.
no subject
Date: 9 Aug 2007 03:52 pm (UTC)Yes, exactly. And I think that LJ is trying to, and that's the reason that this is Not Working. The LJ folks who stayed on as employees after 6A bought LJ are still trying to get away with and operate under the "hey, we're all friends here, so I can be informal, and it's ok!" mentality, but it rings fake now because on the other hand we have them coming down like the corporation they are on us, too. It's like your boss making friendly chitchat with you. You never lose the sight of this person being the boss, if you're smart.
Also, they just totally fail because LJ's not acted EITHER as a responsible corporation or a trusted friend. From both, I'd expect more understanding, a less draconian response, and information about their motives and reasoning.