If you can't say anything nice, don't say it on the internet.
note that I am only referring to public posts in this discussion, not locked posts or information taken from locked posts.
Some recent fandom kerfluffles revolve around the public/private divide, specifically in reference to livejournal. The very useful stargate_weekly newsletter has (quite sadly) ended in anticipation of avoiding future arguments over the role that linking to personal livejournals plays in the public/private divide.
But personal does not necessarily equal private.
It's not just in fandom that I see this expression of shock and/or indignation that there is an audience for information posted online that the journaler or author didn't intend. It happens all over the internet. It's exacerbated in the livejournal community because the structure and language of the friends list leads to overblown expectations and assumptions of privacy in the case of the former, and overblown expectations and assumptions of trust and personal relationships in the case of the latter. Both of which then lead to discussion or outright wank over what rights the journaler and the reader have in regards to access to what is often personal information. The structure and language of friending tends to conflate personal and private, and creates an expectation of privacy where none really exists.
Let me relate a story by way of analogy. I was at the salon where I get my hair cut recently, in the waiting area with a woman who was having a cell phone conversation about a rather personal topic. At a rather significant volume. There was no way I could avoid hearing her, even had I gotten up and moved, and while I tried very hard to ignore it, at one point something was said and I was not quite able to contain the laughter that had been ringing in my head since she sat down. I received a very dirty look and an indignant, "This is a private conversation."
But, it wasn't private. Even though in her mind there was a limited audience (whomever was on the other end of the phone), it was a personal conversation taking place in a relatively public space. To make that conversation truly private, she had the responsibility to remove it from a public venue. If you don't want other people to hear your conversation, don't have it in a public space.
Livejournal is a little like that. We often engage in very limited circles of interaction with our friendslist, and it's easy to fall into the assumption that our friendslist is our only audience. But it's not. People surf other people's friendslists (a lesson I learned recently when fairmer commented that her mother-in-law was amused by something I had posted - turns out Mer's mother-in-law was reading her friendslist), people email friends about posts they find interesting/infuriating/inflammatory, and then there's the friendsoffriends option on livejournal. What we're essentially doing is having personal conversations in a public space.
There's an underlying vibe to this whole issue that far too often comes across as "I want to share, but I don't want all of the repercussions of sharing." Yes, that's a generalization, but I don't think it's an inaccurate assessment that a chunk of this personal/private divide debate is "I want the good of sharing, but not the bad."
You can't have it both ways. Either you use the tools at your disposal to limit sharing your personal information and/or your opinions to a very select audience, or you take the risk and responsibility for what you say in a public venue, and accept the positive and negative response.
It's your personal journal and you have the right to say what you want in that venue, yes, but if you want to share with the public, and better yet, leave open a specific mechanism for comment, don't be surprised that all of the public thinks it has the right to respond. Personal does not equal private, and the person primarily responsible for managing the public/private divide is the person doing the posting.
Some recent fandom kerfluffles revolve around the public/private divide, specifically in reference to livejournal. The very useful stargate_weekly newsletter has (quite sadly) ended in anticipation of avoiding future arguments over the role that linking to personal livejournals plays in the public/private divide.
But personal does not necessarily equal private.
It's not just in fandom that I see this expression of shock and/or indignation that there is an audience for information posted online that the journaler or author didn't intend. It happens all over the internet. It's exacerbated in the livejournal community because the structure and language of the friends list leads to overblown expectations and assumptions of privacy in the case of the former, and overblown expectations and assumptions of trust and personal relationships in the case of the latter. Both of which then lead to discussion or outright wank over what rights the journaler and the reader have in regards to access to what is often personal information. The structure and language of friending tends to conflate personal and private, and creates an expectation of privacy where none really exists.
Let me relate a story by way of analogy. I was at the salon where I get my hair cut recently, in the waiting area with a woman who was having a cell phone conversation about a rather personal topic. At a rather significant volume. There was no way I could avoid hearing her, even had I gotten up and moved, and while I tried very hard to ignore it, at one point something was said and I was not quite able to contain the laughter that had been ringing in my head since she sat down. I received a very dirty look and an indignant, "This is a private conversation."
But, it wasn't private. Even though in her mind there was a limited audience (whomever was on the other end of the phone), it was a personal conversation taking place in a relatively public space. To make that conversation truly private, she had the responsibility to remove it from a public venue. If you don't want other people to hear your conversation, don't have it in a public space.
Livejournal is a little like that. We often engage in very limited circles of interaction with our friendslist, and it's easy to fall into the assumption that our friendslist is our only audience. But it's not. People surf other people's friendslists (a lesson I learned recently when fairmer commented that her mother-in-law was amused by something I had posted - turns out Mer's mother-in-law was reading her friendslist), people email friends about posts they find interesting/infuriating/inflammatory, and then there's the friendsoffriends option on livejournal. What we're essentially doing is having personal conversations in a public space.
There's an underlying vibe to this whole issue that far too often comes across as "I want to share, but I don't want all of the repercussions of sharing." Yes, that's a generalization, but I don't think it's an inaccurate assessment that a chunk of this personal/private divide debate is "I want the good of sharing, but not the bad."
You can't have it both ways. Either you use the tools at your disposal to limit sharing your personal information and/or your opinions to a very select audience, or you take the risk and responsibility for what you say in a public venue, and accept the positive and negative response.
It's your personal journal and you have the right to say what you want in that venue, yes, but if you want to share with the public, and better yet, leave open a specific mechanism for comment, don't be surprised that all of the public thinks it has the right to respond. Personal does not equal private, and the person primarily responsible for managing the public/private divide is the person doing the posting.