Circles and Trust

[sqbr]

One of the interesting things about Dreamwidth is that they have divided the lj "Friends" idea into two separate things: subscribing to someone's journal, and letting them read your locked posts. (Neither of which is called "friending") See my userinfo.

I'm curious to see how this plays out. Myself I'm friending subscribing to pretty anyone who subscribes to me on the assumption that reading filters will come in before it gets unwieldy, but am only giving access to people I'd be comfortable reading my most private locked posts. When/if I actually *do* a locked post I'll reconsider it.

But I would say that a lot of people are giving access to everyone they subscribe to, and possibly then using access filters. See for example denise: she is one of the founders, and uses this account for Official Announcements. She is also currently subscribing to everyone who joins dw. So she's a logical person to subscribe to (and I have) but unless all 668 people who've given her access are her close personal friends...(a roughly equal number have subscribed but not given access)

There's been some interesting discussions about it on metafandom, I'm curious to see how it all plays out:
http://giandujakiss.livejournal.com/770305.html
http://skuf.insanejournal.com/79081.html

(nb am feeling VERY TACTLESS today which is why I decided to keep myself busy with a hopefully uncontroversial subject)

Comments

[tevriel.livejournal.com]

I actually like the DW terminology a lot, and the split. I'm subscribing to everyone I know, and granting access to people I know, and also subscribing to anyone I feel like reading without granting access.

The LJ terminology really does seem to heighten drama a bit.

[shrydar.livejournal.com]

Of course, LJ gives you exactly the same ability (just set up a Default View friends group for your subscriptions, and a 'real friends' friends group for the people you want to give access to for your lightly filtered posts).

But I do agree that Dreamwidth's language and UI is far less emotive, and considerably more accessible.

[penchaft.livejournal.com]

She she has her other account anyway.

[elaran.livejournal.com]

I'm subscribing to everyone I know, and granting access to people I know, and also subscribing to anyone I feel like reading without granting access.
yeah. that.

[alias_sqbr]

Yes, it's hard for "I don't want to be your friend any more" not to sound mean

[alias_sqbr]

As discussed in one of the posts I linked: the ambiguity of what "friending" means might stop some people realising (and then getting offended at) the fact they don't get both of subscription/access, but DW allows you to be equally dishonest ambiguous if you want :)

[alias_sqbr]

*checks*

Hmm. 300ish have access, 600ish are subscribed. I sense a pattern! (Yes, I see patterns everywhere)

[shrydar.livejournal.com]

Oops, I really should have followed your links before commenting; I was a little pressed for time, but that doesn't excuse missing that the first article was making that very point even before getting into the comment thread.

I'm with jekesta in their first comment though.

And as for the comments on the second post..

Even on an individual level--"she took away my access" doesn't have the emotional punch of "she's not my friend anymore."

..I'm not convinced. Considering how much angst I've seen in workplaces over the denial of admin rights to version control repositories, I can't see how hiding locked posts is going to be taken any more lightly.

I do mention on my own profile page that friending implies neither subscription nor access, but I gather a lot of people never bothered reading that :-/

[penchaft.livejournal.com]

Congratulations, you have a human brain!

[alias_sqbr]

Yay!

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah, I think (some) people will still get pretty het up about it, especially when the person cutting off access writes a lot of locked posts.