Internet debate, censorship, and protest
I have a long rant in me, but I don't think I can be bothered with it. Sometimes I read lots of stupid, grr to myself as I think about how stupid it is, and then just think "eh". If people are stupid enough to need an explanation, they usually can't understand it when they're provided with one anyway.

This is the trouble with internet debate. When people demand simple and obvious concept and points be explained to them, and proceed to debate and argue over them, it drags the discussion away from its actual point. It's a great distraction mechanism, and a good trolling mechanism, because you can cry censorship if you're deleted or barred. Yet endlessly filling threads with demands to go over the same basic points again and again ends up turning into a kind of censorship of any deeper point, in a way.

I'm reminded of a guy who joined a feminist discussion board (that is, a discussion board for feminists) I was an admin on, to tell us all how misguided we were. Of course, he framed it more politely than that - he wanted to know what we thought, he was just there to inform himself... he just happened to do that by telling us that we were all wrong. We put up with him for a while, but when he started patronizing the moderators and admins, we gave him a warning - and of course he cried that we were oppressing him, he was just joking around.

We had someone like that on one of the old Phantom boards too, one that was specifically for intelligent discussion amongst fans. Amongst fans, not for people to come along and go on at us asking us why we were fans, and demanding we defend our interest in Phantom. This guy was actually a cast member, and he was interesting enough to be worth some of the annoyance because he provoked some good discussions. He really got on my nerves, though, partly because he was an internets lawyer. He claimed he'd studied law in Canada, but since the Canadian law system isn't completely deranged he was either lying, or had taken one class or something. He was so utterly wrong about his wild legal claims I really should have asked for proof of his qualifications.

On the flip side, I also get annoyed at people who get annoyed at people for protesting about something they care about. It doesn't really matter why they care about it, they don't have to justify themselves to you. I've seen this recently in some of the "nipplegate" discussions - LiveJournal is a private company so they can do whatever they want, deal with it. Well, yes, they're a private company. They can't actually do whatever they want as they're still bound by the law, but within those limits they can have whatever TOS they choose. And as users, we can speak out (or shout and scream) if we think that TOS and those rules are wrong, or poorly applied. Using the service of a company does not take away your right or ability to complain when you think something is wrong. Indeed, a company should be listening to its customers harder than it should listen to people who don't utilize it.

It's legal for Wal-Mart to use sweatshops, it's legal for Starbucks to sell "sweatshop" coffee, it's legal for all manner of companies to pollute the environment and screw over their workers. Of course, compared to these things, LiveJournal's TOS or abuse team problems are pretty insignificant. But part of LJ's business model, part of the reason we all use it, is that it builds up that sense of community. Without the community, quite a few of us wouldn't stay. If a company depends on its users and their communities for its popularity and success, it would be wise to listen to them. They may not owe any legal duty to do so, but it's a poor business decision not to.

Latest on "nipplegate".