![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
so this is kind of a rant...
Jan. 5th, 2007 02:34 amArgh. 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.
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.