Site Specific.

[tablesaw]

tyrsylvia offered a link to a post by insomnia about LiveJournal's proposed "compromise" on discontinuing invite codes. In summary, users will be able to start a free account, but after thirty days, the journal will be "frozen" unless the user makes a donation or solicits an invite code. This leaves the original invite-code system in place, even if it puts it on a time delay.

insomnia's post got me thinking about this, and I agree with his disagreement, although not for precisely the same reasons. Where he was focusing on the open-source aspects, I pulled a thread that he dedicated less time to, the propensity of the invite codes to discourage the inclusion of "outsider" voices. I was moved to add a dissenting comment, which I duplicate here:

The trial-account procedure seems to me to be wholly ineffectual, designed to placate opposing sides without making a firm statement of direction for the site.

The invite-code system was put in place, apparently, to prevent abuse. The means to stop rampant abuse appear to be in place, which one would think, would mean that the system is no longer necessary. I believe, however, that the system has subtly warped the culture of LiveJournal during its tenure as gate-keeper.

Some say that it's easy to get an invite code, but this is not precisely true. It's easy to give invite codes. A prospective user who does not know any members and who does not read any members' journal, a prospective user, perhaps, who saw an add in a movie theater and thinks it's a cool idea and wants to join, is told that he has to either find a friend on the system or pay. This is a major disincentive to the casual user who just wants to start a blog, and he is likely to look elsewhere rather than try finding some random user among the thousands who can offer him membership.

It's been considered that LiveJournal's greatest asset is the amount of community it provides through things like commenting, friends lists, etc. It's something that many LiveJournal users prize, and so it's understandable that so many are attached to the invite-code system. The system fosters this type of community by penalizing prospective users who are not already part of it. The majority of people who start journals with invite codes know and read at least one user before joining, since that user gave them their codes. These users, then, start using LiveJournal with a foot in a community already and are enveloped into it. But I believe, with others such as insomnia, that the perpetuation of the invite-code system as a requirement to use LiveJournal works to suppress independent voices who might otherwise become members. By putting up these absurd obstacles, LiveJournal is squandering its own potential.

It has been mentioned elsewhere in these comments that users may wish to screen "trial users" from commenting on their posts. This option may provide a final disincentive against would-be spammers. But if a nonabusive blogger decided to start a trial account under this system without reading any other LJ blog and without seeking any other LJ user to read his, then he or she ought not be penalized for the decision. To require this user make a payment or solicit the aid of other users whom he does not care about in order to continue using the supposedly free service to avoid the deletion of his account is ridiculous.

If I were to propose a compromise to the compromise, I would suggest upgrading all current "Free Users" to another class such as "Free Members" or "Nifty People" or some such thing. The requirement to become a "Free Member" would be a payment to LiveJournal or the donation of a "member code" (once an invite code) by another user. Anyone could become a Free User by passing the Turing test and would have all the benefits of current Free Users. However, individual embers would be able to prevent Free Users from commenting on their journals or joining the communities they moderate at those other members' own discretion. This would allow new users to blog to their hearts content, but would allow those who value the sanctity of whatever community they define a measure of protection. I have no problem with users discriminating against users, but the site itself should not.

The Terms of Service say that "LiveJournal.com is a web-based service that allows its users to create and update online journals . . . ." The community is wonderful, but I think that LiveJournal now has the opportunity to let people blog for the sake of blogging. If, instead, the site is to be transformed into more of a social network, then I say go for that too. Change the TOS and make this site more like Friendster. But a direction must be chosen as soon as possible.