so this is kind of a rant...

[ratcreature]

Argh. I just refrained from posting a lengthy, ranting comment, since I don't think the original post was intended to spark meta discussion or anything, and I already tried to make my point there, but it really rubs me the wrong way when mere "linking" and actual "archiving" are conflated like that in the whole fannish etiquette context of asking for permission to do so, authorial control etc. So I figured I might as well post my rant to my own LJ to get it off my chest rather than to comment excessively.

It's just that I've by now seen this from several people, who get somehow ruffled about links in fandom and wanting to control them, and I don't get that at all. I think extending this proprietary feeling to mere links rather than to actual copies and distribution of stories and the like is a bad idea for fandom as a whole, and feel the need to argue whenever this comes up. Because if it became accepted etiquette standard in fandom (to have to ask for linking rights or be thought of as rude) it would make a lot of useful things like recs and thematic lists far more difficult, whereas is wouldn't really improve the control of authors in any real way, after all it's not like other people were in control of the story by linking to it, and trying to limit or choose the audience by controlling links rather than controlling actual access is just strange, IMO. Linking and archiving is just not the same.

I mean, I get that there can be issues just with directing traffic, both for attention and traffic concerns like it shows in the discussions about reccing vids and related fannish etiquette. But it's not like the linking from other fandom sites that I mean has the issues that can arise when a high profile site directs traffic to you that the server just can't handle because someone randomly thinks something on your site is amusing or something (like say the Slashdot effect and the like), that may crash a website and depending on the hosting plan add unexpected costs too.

I completely understand that authors want to remain in control of the distribution of their stories, the places where actual copies are archived and such, so that if they felt like pulling a story, or changing it, or password protecting it or whatever, they can make the change or implement the password and it is done without having to contact a bunch of other people or to track down extra copies. I feel the same way about my fanart. But you can do that whether or not anybody links to you. The control over the actual story's presence on the net (as much as it exists with digital things that are unless special measures are taken after all copied as soon as anyone just looks at them) is yours no matter who links (also provided the site successfully kept archiving bots storing copies for search engines and automated internet archives like archive.org out through meta headers).

Controlling mere references to stories such as links, basically others just mentioning that you published something, is like demanding control over more than just your own story, it asks others to treat published things as if it wasn't published speech but private speech, which is counterintuitive and hampering for a ton of useful things enabling other fans to find things in fandom, especially as fandom infrastructure and technology already offer all the tools to make distribution more private to varying degrees (lists, f-lock, password protection etc) for random internet traffic but still somewhat accessible to the audience in fandom, if a fan is only comfortable with that.

But wanting to have all the control of locking content but all the advantages of publishing it, and none of the drawbacks of either, kind of seems to me like wanting to keep the cake and eat it too. It's just impossible.

Comments

[bethbethbeth.livejournal.com]

Well, yes...to say nothing of the fact that the entire internet is basically a glamorous series of links.

[ratcreature]

Yeah. I really don't understand this view that links to their content are theirs to control. Or where that is coming from. I mean, I have seen my artwork linked in strange places, like sites which link to my fanart without comprehending that it is fanart, sites making fun of my stuff (or slash in general), a ton of contexts I don't really care for (usually with the added annoyance of it being hotlinked which I can't prevent with my webspace, which is another issue, but I don't object the linking as such), and thanks to google image search I had the disconcerting experience to see my art used in automated image collage memes, but I mean, I published and decided in favor of easy accessibilty (to indexing and searching for example) so I don't get to choose anymore who says what or point in my direction.

[penknife.livejournal.com]

I can't imagine expecting people to ask permission before linking to my stories -- I mean, not when we're talking about someone linking on LJ or another fan site. I can see asking before linking somewhere that's going to draw a lot of nonfannish traffic, or before mentioning a story in a print article, but just normal linking? I assume that posting stories in fannish spaces means that people may link to them (and I hope to be that lucky!), and that authors will keep them locked or password-protected if they're uncomfortable with that.

[cereta.livejournal.com]

The notion that you can or should want to control who links to you just kind of breaks my brain a little. Hi, let me introduce you to something called the World Wide Web.

[cofax7]

::blinks::

@@->forever

I have in the past refused permission to archive on some crap sites. I consider that it is outside my authority to say anything about people who link to me. And only an idiot would think that I approve of the underage Sam/John necrophilia kink exhibited by the reccer in the next rec down...

Bah.

[ratcreature]

Yeah, exactly. I mean, apparently the reasoning is that somehow certain link contexts, like say a rec site also linking chan, would taint by association or something. But seriously, just because I like to rec both gen and fluffy as well as potentially disturbing AUs on my rec page, I don't impact the authors control over their story in any way. I'm just baffled.

[ratcreature]

Yeah exactly. I mean my rec site only reflects my tastes after all, and it's really very different from archiving stories. Also, what a complete logistical nightmare it would be for reccers, thematic lists, or any kind of fannish resource site if this "linking only with permission" idea caught as fannish etiquette.

[ratcreature]

Yeah, and yet you see it crop up and some people not and agree as if it made sense. I mean the idea that linking is not the same as archiving or distribution seems very clear to me, but apparently not, when some people thing that a rec site is like an archive.

[jacquez.livejournal.com]

I had this argument once, back in DS, and ended up telling someone who wanted to control all links to her stuff that she was fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the web, which, well, she was.

It's become more and more common to see, though, and I basically ignore it unless an author has a story that is ONLY archived at a non-blog/lj personal website where the front page has a specific request to link to the front page, rather than individual stories. If they've archived that story ANYWHERE else, I'll link there instead, because wtf.

[ratcreature]

Yeah. I just hate that this bizarre idea seem to gain ground.

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

It's not just limited to fandom either. I've run across this bizarre idea that the owner of a webpage should be able to control links to their page in a variety of "netiquette" discussions going back quite a ways. I haven't seen it crop up in years and I had always thought of it as a problem of the really early Internet, before people really understood the way the Web works (i.e. as a big series of links). I mean, it'd be like trying to stay off Google; if your page is linked ANYWHERE, it'll get spidered. If you're that proprietary about your stuff, WHY, for the love of cheese, are you on the *Internet*?!

[ratcreature]

What I find especially baffling is that fandom already offers ways to distribute in more limited ways than the open internet, like under f-lock that will still reach some parts of your potential audience, but obviously that has drawbacks in that the audience is still smaller. But I mean, it's just impossible to have total control and the largest potential audience at the same time, yet I've seen this idea more often recently than when I started getting into online fadom in the late 90s.

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

I totally get the need for control, but frankly, once it's out there, there's no way you *can* control...and this is coming from me, who actually tries to argue for degrees of public spaces :-)

talking of public...i can metafandom you, right??? :D

[ratcreature]

Heh, you know you can, I would have locked it if I wanted to prevent linking.

I mean, I get the degrees thing, like for example the few times I felt theneed to rant about some list discussion I locked those posts becauseobviously the list wan't fully public. But there are technological means, and they come at a price. And are the responsibility of the poster. To want all the control *and* the easy access for the widest audience, that is just contradictory, and demanding that it ought to be that way, to try to make the web work differently or something like that, puts a ton of extra effort on other fans, like reccers, newsletter editors etc.

[jadecanary.livejournal.com]

Your journal is on the watcher list for comicstore_news, and as I'm update duty tonight I happened to catch this post. If I had to ask for permission to link to fic, never mind the various meta and discussion and whatnot, CSN would be updated about once a week. So, uh, yeah. I agree with what you're saying completely.

[brownbetty]

Fits under "unclear on concept of 'internet'" It's the internet. People can link to you.

I mean, okay. Sometimes I want to say something that I know my inmediate flist will interpret one way, and I know if I do it will get picked up by a wider audience who would interpret it another way. So then I post it under f-lock.

[brownbetty]

Also, do you follow fangirls_attack? They had someone have a hissy fit over being linked to a few months ago. It was kind of moronic. If I remember correctly, he didn't like the compilers and didn't want to "do him any favours."

[ratcreature]

No, I didn't follow that. But it's kind of depressing how widespread this view of linking apparently is.

[ratcreature]

Yeah, but the problem to potentially have to deal with some wank doesn't even apply to stories linked on rec pages. (Well obviously a story can be controversial too, but still linking on a rec page is not archiving someone else's story.)

[ratcreature]

Yeah, this kind of extra filtering and distribution control through rechecking with the author for every link would put a huge amount of extra work and hassle on all kinds of fannish ressource compilers, when it should be just the author's decision to publish or to lock and then deal with both good and bad consequences of different exposure levels.

[dragovianknight.livejournal.com]

I absolutely don't understand the desire to control links. And when anyone does ask, "May I link to this?" or "Can I send a link to my friend?" my reaction is, "Duh, that's why I put it on the web." Links are what the web IS!

[ratcreature]

I don't get it either. I mean, I understand that in some circumstances it makes sense in fandom to ask before linking as a social courtesy, beyond the "you put it on the web, deal with all traffic" thing, like say in the case of vids and such I respect it if a vidder asks not to link even the LJ post directing to the vid, though as default I assume it's okay to rec vids in fannish venues that are about the same or less popular unless the vidders asks not to. (I mean, for example if a fan with an LJ that's read by 3000 people links to a vidder's LJ post whose LJ is normally read by 150 people, I can see the sense in asking even for making intra-fandom links.) Similarly I can see asking before linking somewhere that would direct lots of non-fannish traffic. But the idea that my rec site should only link if it meets with the authorial approval, that's just bizarre. It's not like an author could ever prevent others to group their works with other things that they don't approve of.

[zing_och.livejournal.com]

I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately I don't have any further thoughts because your icon has hypnotised me. *keeps nodding*

[ratcreature]

Heh. Maybe I should do one with animated swirly eyes for mindcontrol purposes...

[ithiliana.livejournal.com]

Here from metafandom, and going *word.*

I'm also wondering if some of this 'agreement' is because people don't underestand or think about the differences between archiving, linking, etc.

That is, in the same way that my students (many of them!) cannot seem to distinguish between a general internet site and an article in a full-text database to which access is controlled (subscription, password, etc.) -- because it's all "the internet." Many people who use this series of tubes don't understand it in any meaningful way, so they may be distinguish between two very different well modes.

But then some people seem to think nobody should even refer to their story or talk about it in any way without permisison--which also boggles my mind!