Public posts

[marnanightingale]

I should prefer that this post not be quoted or linked to, please.

So I'm thinking about public posting. For a number of reasons; several exchanges I have had with people recently have contributed to this, but this isn't a response to any of them and I am not at this moment irked with anyone. In case anyone was wondering.

Variants on this keep coming up:

"You made a public post, what do you expect?" Or, on occasion, "Friends-lock or not, you put something on the internet, what did you expect?"

Might be fic, might be meta, might be any number of things. Still bothers me.

I'm sure people don't mean it the way it sounds to me. Probably they mean as many things by it as there are people who say it.

But what it sounds like, quite often, is this:

"You stupid bitch, don't you realize you went and opened your mouth? We can do anything we want to you now! For any reason! Or none! WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?"

So. I make public posts. They are usually intended to entertain people, or interest them, or pass on information, or sometimes just to be amusing.

I don't make posts intended to piss people off, which I agree is a whole 'nother thing.

What do I expect, when I do that?

Decency, courtesy and respect, actually. Just the normal human level that I expect of face to face interaction. You know, this lj is basically an open party. Come in, have a drink. Join the discussion, or just dance, if you wanna.

But no puking on the floor, no picking fights with other guests, and if I ask you to enjoy the cake but leave the pie in the fridge alone, leave it. If you take it out and throw it and then say I left it where you could get to it, what did I expect, well, I expect you'll be leaving the party early. Possibly feet first. And I will be extremely displeased with you.

And they can't be too unreasonable, my expectations, because actually, this is almost always exactly how people behave. Half-naked women keep coming in, they dance like you would not believe, they bring fresh supplies of chips -- it's all extremely good.

I'm writing this because it helps me think, not because I think any of you actually need to be told this.

*puts on more music and smooches fandom wildly, just 'cause*.

Isn't that kind of naive of me? Well, no. Expect, you see, is not the same as assume. I don't always get what I expect. I don't always behave as well as I expect myself to.

I do not assume that people will necessarily behave well. It is not necessary for anyone to write me long comments explaining that human beings are capable of unspeakable depravity, nevermind obnoxiousness, callousness, and dishonesty. Got that memo, thanks.

I don't take foolish risks with my comfort or safety in this journal, though I often take considered ones.

But if you ever have a need to know what I expect, when I make a public post? Now you know, so you never have to ask me again.

Comments

[guede-mazaka.livejournal.com]

No, not naive in the least. You could use the same reasoning for conversations. "Well, you can't really expect stuff like the privacy of the confessional and doctor-patient or lawyer-client confidentiality to stick. Come on, you open your mouth, you open your mouth!"

...and guess who'd be up in arms if society at large ever took that seriously.

*livens up enough to offer-support cuddle*

*curls in bed*

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

OBDorothySayers: "SOME consideration for others is necessary to communal life." Yes.

*snuggles back and rubs your back*

You sound downright shocky, sweetie, nevermind anaemic. Grab yourself a hot and sweeteened drink to take to bed with?

[guede-mazaka.livejournal.com]

Am finishing off some leftover rice--that's bland and should keep me going so undereating isn't a factor. Past experience tells me liquids tend to startle my stomach into worse.

[melusina]

I think flocked or filtered posts are a different animal - it's inappropriate and rude to reveal the contents of a post that the author clearly didn't want everyone to see.

But to use your analogy, if you broadcast something on network tv, you can't expect it to stay private or to be able to control other peoples' reactions to it. . .

[mycrazyhair.livejournal.com]

to use your analogy, if you broadcast something on network tv, you can't expect it to stay private or to be able to control other peoples' reactions to it. . .

You mean, if someone posts a public entry, they have no right to expect people won't quote from it, etc.? In general, I think you're right. But if the poster specifically asks readers not to quote from it or link from it, then I think the poster has reason to expect that his or her friends will honour that. (I'm not talking about random wanderers-by who happen to come across it. Just the people you know and trust.)

[mycrazyhair.livejournal.com]

And, of course, you can still hope that random passers-by will honour your request too; the odds just go down a bit when you're talking to strangers.

[melusina]

You mean, if someone posts a public entry, they have no right to expect people won't quote from it, etc.?

Exactly - I think the default assumption is that public entries are published texts that can be linked to/quoted/commented on by anyone (but that doesn't absolve the commenter/linker/other poster from the responsibility to be *polite*). Now if someone specifically asks that a post not be linked to or quoted from, I think the most polite thing is to honor that request. But I also have to wonder why someone wouldn't simply lock or filter that post. . .

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

that doesn't absolve the commenter/linker/other poster from the responsibility to be *polite*

Yes, exactly. And that, really, is my point.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

I also have to wonder why someone wouldn't simply lock or filter that post. . .

In my case because there's a distinction between being quite comfortable with whoever drops by my lj seeing a particular post and wanting it actually actively presented to people I have no context for.

So this seems, on the face of it, a good compromise state; we'll see how it works.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

Also, this is partly by way of an experiment. The question came up, this seems a possible reasonable approach, I shall see how it plays out, I think.

[guede-mazaka.livejournal.com]

...you realize I was parodying the usual opinion that if it's on the 'net at all, then it's fair game. What my analogy was meant to point out is that we rely on the same assumptions of privacy for our different levels of everyday conversation, and no one would buy a doctor revealing a confidential conversation just because "it was said, therefore it's free for all."

Obviously, public posts are public the same way public TV is, but I think it's specious reasoning to use that alone as a justification. We have "public" conversations with friends all the time that we trust won't get to other people we know. You could differentiate for example between comment threads and posts--I've had people link my convos in discussion threads once in a while and shove their way in, and I wasn't particularly fond of that. And if it's someone else's LJ, the best you can do is ask them to screen those comments.

[melusina]

...you realize I was parodying the usual opinion that if it's on the 'net at all, then it's fair game.

This isn't an opinion I've encountered - most of the people I know online distinguish between public and private communications online (for example public vs. flocked posts), just as they do between public and private communication in "RL" (for example, a speech given a at a public event vs. a conversation with your doctor). I'm reminded here of some of the debate around Kerry mentioning in one of the presidential debates that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian - this is something she's been very open about, mentioning it in speeches and interviews, but he was castigated for bringing it up. In my opinion, it was entirely appropriate that he mention it (especially since it highlighted the Republicans' hypocrisy about gay rights); now if it had been something that she'd only told her priest, and somehow a rumor had come to Kerry about it, that would be an entirely different matter. . .

I do think there are times when things get muddy - I would be hesitant to link to a public post that contained details about someone's private life and would ask first. And although I've never thought about it, I can see how someone might view a discussion in the comments to a public post to be a more private conversation than the post itself.

[guede-mazaka.livejournal.com]

This isn't an opinion I've encountered - most of the people I know online distinguish between public and private communications online (for example public vs. flocked posts

I'm guessing you didn't really keep close track of the Frienditto blow-up. It's actually a v. common opinion among LJers who aren't here to do fannish stuff--we tend to forget LJ isn't just about the fandom communities.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

This seems to have been covered rather better below, but...

Well, it's not private in the first place.

As far as other people's reactions well, I don't wish to control people's reactions, generally.

I wish them to control themselves. If they'd prefer not to do so, they will doubtless find that some other lj is a more comfortable venue for them to read comment in.

I find the party analogy more useful than the network tv one -- if I post it in a com,, well, that's network tv. This is more in the nature of chalking sonnets on my sidewalk, really.

But even if I broadcast something on network tv -- yes, people will have various opinions of it. I have no desire whatsoever to change that.

If someone shows up at my house at 3am to deliver a scathing critique via loudspeaker, complete with speculations about my ancestry, I believe they will find rather rapidly than SOME reactions I can, and will, cheerfully and ruthlessly control with no discussion before, during, or after.

As for the rest: as you say. But this is still the standard I expect at my parties.

(At which, btw, you are a valued and excellent guest.)

And I am continually seeing that line being blurred: 'you can't control it' because 'why worry about it' becomes 'are you still on about that?'

So once in awhile I need to note that yes, I'm still on about that.

[cleverthylacine]

The thing about public posting is that there is little you can do to control what people do, except of course for plagiarism; therefore, I post nothing publicly that I care about seeing outside my journal.

LJ does offer you lots of tools with which to decree what happens within your journal, which I rather like. In addition to f-locking and filtering posts (I filter anything sensitive, because I do not know who all those people on my friendslist are; some of them are people I just like reading and some are people who like to read me), you can, if people are being obnoxious, not only freeze threads, but delete comments and posts and even ban people who annoy you.

Some people on FW regard using these features as 'wanky' but I think if you are honest about regarding your journal as your space and don't claim to be applying objective criteria if you aren't...

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

The thing about life is that there is comparatively little I can control what people do.

And I don't, generally, try.

... this has never stopped me having opinions about it.

And yes, there are all those handy features. Like twit filters and belly buttons, I wouldn't be without them but I don't generally feel the need to inform the world what I've been doing with them. Aside from sparing everyone else the gory details, this prevents me from accidentally suggesting that I want to know what they think I ought to have done instead. :-)

[megpie71.livejournal.com]

Coming in a little late (hey, I'm on the other side of the country at present) to agree you don't seem to be all that unreasonable.

I'm fairly conscious that through my LJ I am living publicly. This means that if I don't want it made public, I don't post it. But the fact remains that the journal I am posting in is *my* journal, and that means I'm allowed to choose the topics, and to expect a certain amount of reasonable behaviour from commenters. If you don't like what I'm saying, or what someone else is saying, fine, you're entitled to.

Like you, I expect people to behave toward one another in a relatively decent fashion. Like you, I sometimes get disappointed by the way they *do* behave. But by and large, the great majority of people tend to live up to my expectations.

[melusina]

My own sense is similar to ataniell93's - I don't believe "if you post something, you deserve whatever rudeness you get," but as a writer/blogger, I'm aware that once something has been "published," the author loses control of it. The only way to control your words is to control how you disseminate them. So if I don't want the whole world to know about my fight with my husband, I don't post it in a public entry to my journal. If I'm not ready to read negative reviews of/comments on a story I've written, I filter it to the folks I trust to read it and give me honest, but kind feedback, etc.

This does *not* mean that I think that any and all responses to published texts are appropriate. I still think that we ought to treat one another with kindness and consideration and civility, even when we disagree with one another. It's just that I don't think we can have it both ways - we can't make something available to all comers, and then expect to be able to dictate how they respond to it.

Although, as a matter of courtesy, I'm glad not to link to someone who asks me not to, I truly believe that you should no more have to ask me if you can link to a public post in my journal than you should have to ask the NY Times if you can link to an article on their website. I should no more fear honestly reviewing a story posted on pirategasm than I should fear reviewing Neal Gaiman's new novel.

Obviously, locked and filtered posts are a different animal, and it's *because* we have the option to limit our readership in this way that I feel that commenting on, discussing and linking to public posts should not be considered rude or inappropriate. Basically it's a trade-off - we can limit your readerships, and thus have more control over their response, or we can open up the post and expand our readerships, but lose all control over who reads it and how they interpret it.

And because the author of a post always has the choice to lock or filter it, my default assumption is that a public post means that someone wants more readers and more comments (obviously no one wants rude attacks, but unfortunately, that's part of the risk of a public post).

I guess part of what's shaping my response to this is that in the past, I've been accused of being rude for doing things like responding to a post in my own journal, rather than in the comments to the original post, or writing about my reactions to a story in my journal, and analyzing why a certain plot device or characterization didn't work for me. And I honestly don't believe that either of these things are wrong, so long as they are done politely. . .

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

And I honestly don't believe that either of these things are wrong, so long as they are done politely. . .

Nor do I. I did say that nobody who regularly reads my lj really needs to be told this, right?

[nolivingman.livejournal.com]

I'm sure people don't mean it the way it sounds to me. Probably they mean as many things by it as there are people who say it.

When I have said something like that (and I have), it's always been to point out the need to be responsible for what one has written. Which is really the flip side of what you're pointing out, I think. If you (generic you, commodorified you doesn't do this) post inflammatory nonsense/hate/wank in public on your LJ, you have to expect that you will be called on it. Saying "But I didn't think anybody read my LJ" just doesn't cut it, and that's where I see that kind of statement being useful. It does not remove the responsibility of readers/commenters to act with respect for their host.

*grabs a chip, casts an eye for potential dance partners*

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

Decency, courtesy and respect

And there's the rub. Particularly on the last two.

In many of the environments I have lived in or engaged in online, showing courtesy and respect for someone involves engaging with their ideas, and playing with the implications, and expressing disagreement where one disagrees with precision, candour, and compassion. In others, doing so seems to open one to charges of gross insensitivity or hurting people's feelings. The longer I live and the more variety I engage with, the more firmly I conclude that guessing in advance just gets me in trouble and I'll ask if it seems apt. Which does seem to filter out people for whom the act of asking is indicative of gross insensitivity et cetera, but of the few lines I hold to absolutely, communication being needful is one of them.

Know your metaphor

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

Is it street-theatre or (as commodorified suggests) a garden-party? A blog or a community? LJ certainly appears, after only a very short time among it (and this by one who is, shall we say, naturally tone-deaf to social nuance) to be the latter. But I suspect that in the case of some offenders, that they are using the manners appropriate to the former and miffed by the (to them) unexpected response.

Re: Know your metaphor

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

*nods*

You know, one of the most important aspects of planning street-theatre is providing for the comfort and safety of the intended audience and other bystanders. You don't necessarily see that planning, but it's there.

... that is probably irrelevant.

I think to a degree it's a moveable feast, but there's a semi-endless process of negotiation that goes into shaping one's own participation and keeping one's party-style-of-choice running smoothly.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

An eloquent summary of sentiments I happen to wholeheartedly agree with.

[nindulgence.livejournal.com]

To what particular kind of behaviour are you objecting here?

When an LJer inadvertently posts something publicly that she meant to post privately--or even when a newbie is genuinely taken aback by the attention attracted by a personal post she thought only her friendslist would see--I would always respect the poster's privacy.

But I don't take issue with linking to or discussing an intentionally public post without permission, nor would I consider it unreasonable to continue elsewhere a discussion that the poster makes public, then locks when she gets more responses (or different ones) than she expected. If the responses include flames, well, those are rude under any circumstances, and LJers do have the power to screen or delete comments...

~

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

Sounds about right to me.

Mostly I'm objecting to the behaviour of saying to people "well, what did you expect?", actually.

As if it were approximately obvious that anyone expecting less than the absolute worst of people deserves whatever they get.

I do not expect the worst of people, online or off. Given the quality of my friendslist, I think I have ample grounds for expecting the best, and as I said, I almost invariably get it.

You know, I never CAN resist rhetoical questions.

[nindulgence.livejournal.com]

Mostly I'm objecting to the behaviour of saying to people "well, what did you expect?", actually.

Ah. Yes, that response drives me up the wall as well...as if it's somehow unutterably naive of one to expect that other people will behave in a thoughtful and civilized manner.

And it's becoming an increasingly common response in offline social situations as well. (O tempora! O mores!)

*grumbles in true curmudgeonly fashion*

~

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

*puts on another pot of tea and joins the grumbling*

Ah, well, some of us have the be the crazy mumbling ladies in the corners of fandom.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

"... AND the price of coal going up again..."