a range of clarifications
Mar. 6th, 2005 11:12 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rmI'd really like to be able to stop talking about the Frienditto thing, but in watching this thing unfold around the net and around my friends, there are a few points, both personal and general that I feel have gone unaddressed. Other than dealing with the logistics of the situation, I sincerely hope and intend this will be my last post on the subject.
1. I have been on the Internet for fifteen years. I am aware of many things and axioms about it, including that nothing we ever say is truly private and nothing we ever say truly disappears.
2. I am a creative professional. Among other things I receive money for things I write, the use of my image in advertising and my performances in front of an audience and/or camera. Just because I am not a star, and at the relative beginning of my career does not mean that I am not my own product, that my image (and by this I mean the shape of my face as much as the shape of the associations people make with me based on my words, my dress and my bearing) is not fundamental to my business.
3. I have dealt with a number of copyright issues online before. I have had copyrighted images I use in my journal and in my marketing added to merchandise (without a satirical intent that might have had some legal defense could I possibly be considered a public figure, which is extraordinarily debateable) and sold without my consent (many LJ'ers were affected by this and LJ was instrumental in shutting it down). I've also had an essay I wrote recopied (not linked to, but republished) on a political website designed to raise money for causes I abhor without my permission. These are but two examples of the types of things that are both the "minor annoyances of the Internet" and the type of detriment to my business I feel impelled to take seriously.
4. As such, my objection to Frienditto comes not from an expectation of privacy on the Internet (my god, you can find crap about me online from when I was 17), or even a somewhat absurd and general desire for civility. It has nothing to do with psychological damage, emotional harm or a need for therapy, as has also been suggested, or from the fact that the actions of those who disagree with my statements on this subject at least border on harassment. It has to do with people taking the product of others, illegally and for their own gain. And it has to do with people attempting to fuck with my product via a surreal amount of speculation about my birth gender -- a subject which I have not graced with a response because that means I would have to accept as valid the underlying supposition that such things are worthy of accusation as opposed to inquiry. I disagree with that, and I will not be party to it, even in my own so-called defense. Certainly, what I am to any extent it could possibly matter is self-evident in the work I do every day and the growing success I continue to have with it.
5. A lot of people have asked, "Why don't you just make your journal entirely friends only?" in response to this. Or have inquired as to why I am not screening or deleting the offending comments. The reason is simple. Although Livejournal thankfully gives us the tools to protect ourselves from interactions we deem undesireable here, part of my existence on Livejournal is about "freedom to". And while, after the last 36 hours or so, I'd love some "freedom from" I'm not going to crawl under a rock in response to a bunch of really standard-issue Internet bullshit. I've so been down this road before, it's not even funny. That said, I've seen more than a few people delete or lock their posts about this situation, go from allowing posting from the entire LJ community to limiting it to a more select group of people because of this situation. And I understand and support their reasons, but I'm a bit of an idealist, and so, this is where I am in this whole absurd thing. When people are afraid to speak their minds because of agressive, baseless ridicule, we're all lesser. And I object less to the vitriol that is being spewed at any who take legal or ethical issue with Frienditto (it is your perogative after all) than the systematic implementation and distribution of said vitriol. I wil confess, I have resorted to banning users engaged in this thing, but really have only been doing so haphazardly as the mood strikes me. It's the one measure I can take that doesn't significantly impair how I use LJ while also keeping some of this trash away from me.
6. Back when I first got online, the Internet was a bit like the Wild West, in a freaks and geeks, two tin cans on a string sort of way. We were often funny, outrageous and cruel. And there wasn't that much law or that many conventions of behavior to fall back on. The Internet also wasn't as diverse then, and had gained a reputation neither for being so common, nor for saving so many lives just by virtue of people discovering they were not the only one. Yes, in all my day to day crankiness, I believe in the greater purpose of this place. You can call me daft; that's fine. I'm just a bit of a Romantic, as the DVD collection often proves. So while I don't have a tremndous amount of time to engage this shit, I also don't have very much patience for it either.
7. The Frienditto situation is unacceptable, regardless of where you stand on the viability of privacy on the Internet. Period.
1. I have been on the Internet for fifteen years. I am aware of many things and axioms about it, including that nothing we ever say is truly private and nothing we ever say truly disappears.
2. I am a creative professional. Among other things I receive money for things I write, the use of my image in advertising and my performances in front of an audience and/or camera. Just because I am not a star, and at the relative beginning of my career does not mean that I am not my own product, that my image (and by this I mean the shape of my face as much as the shape of the associations people make with me based on my words, my dress and my bearing) is not fundamental to my business.
3. I have dealt with a number of copyright issues online before. I have had copyrighted images I use in my journal and in my marketing added to merchandise (without a satirical intent that might have had some legal defense could I possibly be considered a public figure, which is extraordinarily debateable) and sold without my consent (many LJ'ers were affected by this and LJ was instrumental in shutting it down). I've also had an essay I wrote recopied (not linked to, but republished) on a political website designed to raise money for causes I abhor without my permission. These are but two examples of the types of things that are both the "minor annoyances of the Internet" and the type of detriment to my business I feel impelled to take seriously.
4. As such, my objection to Frienditto comes not from an expectation of privacy on the Internet (my god, you can find crap about me online from when I was 17), or even a somewhat absurd and general desire for civility. It has nothing to do with psychological damage, emotional harm or a need for therapy, as has also been suggested, or from the fact that the actions of those who disagree with my statements on this subject at least border on harassment. It has to do with people taking the product of others, illegally and for their own gain. And it has to do with people attempting to fuck with my product via a surreal amount of speculation about my birth gender -- a subject which I have not graced with a response because that means I would have to accept as valid the underlying supposition that such things are worthy of accusation as opposed to inquiry. I disagree with that, and I will not be party to it, even in my own so-called defense. Certainly, what I am to any extent it could possibly matter is self-evident in the work I do every day and the growing success I continue to have with it.
5. A lot of people have asked, "Why don't you just make your journal entirely friends only?" in response to this. Or have inquired as to why I am not screening or deleting the offending comments. The reason is simple. Although Livejournal thankfully gives us the tools to protect ourselves from interactions we deem undesireable here, part of my existence on Livejournal is about "freedom to". And while, after the last 36 hours or so, I'd love some "freedom from" I'm not going to crawl under a rock in response to a bunch of really standard-issue Internet bullshit. I've so been down this road before, it's not even funny. That said, I've seen more than a few people delete or lock their posts about this situation, go from allowing posting from the entire LJ community to limiting it to a more select group of people because of this situation. And I understand and support their reasons, but I'm a bit of an idealist, and so, this is where I am in this whole absurd thing. When people are afraid to speak their minds because of agressive, baseless ridicule, we're all lesser. And I object less to the vitriol that is being spewed at any who take legal or ethical issue with Frienditto (it is your perogative after all) than the systematic implementation and distribution of said vitriol. I wil confess, I have resorted to banning users engaged in this thing, but really have only been doing so haphazardly as the mood strikes me. It's the one measure I can take that doesn't significantly impair how I use LJ while also keeping some of this trash away from me.
6. Back when I first got online, the Internet was a bit like the Wild West, in a freaks and geeks, two tin cans on a string sort of way. We were often funny, outrageous and cruel. And there wasn't that much law or that many conventions of behavior to fall back on. The Internet also wasn't as diverse then, and had gained a reputation neither for being so common, nor for saving so many lives just by virtue of people discovering they were not the only one. Yes, in all my day to day crankiness, I believe in the greater purpose of this place. You can call me daft; that's fine. I'm just a bit of a Romantic, as the DVD collection often proves. So while I don't have a tremndous amount of time to engage this shit, I also don't have very much patience for it either.
7. The Frienditto situation is unacceptable, regardless of where you stand on the viability of privacy on the Internet. Period.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: irony
Date: 2005-03-06 08:40 pm (UTC)You've done nothing offensive, and you have nothing for which you should apologize. Given the behavior of the side that you thought I was taking in this debate, I think it does you credit that you stuck to being civil and rational. Well done.
Adrian
Re: irony
Date: 2005-03-08 03:37 pm (UTC)Re: irony
Date: 2005-03-08 03:40 pm (UTC)Re: irony
Date: 2005-03-08 09:33 pm (UTC)She is obviously not very smart, since anon comments are still allowed.
Another theory you might consider is that banning you was a hint. But I forgot; You're obviously so much smarter than the rest of us that I'm sure you've already thought of that, haven't you.
Adrian
Re: irony
Date: 2005-03-09 10:03 pm (UTC)I am going to try to make this as easy for you to understand as I can, addressing all of your comments in the order that I read them. This is the last comment I'm making on here, and the last time I am looking at this page. I'm at risk of an aneurysm if I continue to involve myself in this. See you in Livejournal Hell, suckers.
1. Clearly, you didn't understand what I meant by that. The reason I don't think she's very smart is that she didn't want me posting on here anymore, and thought that she would be able to stop it by banning me, but here I am... still posting.
2. I never said I was smarter than anyone, but I am definitely right.
3. I meant to use dribble, as in the worthless, unimportant foam coming out of of all your mouths. It's a metaphor. Look it up, cunt.
4. I think you all deserve a good kick in the teeth, and if I saw you on the street and recognized you I would be more than happy to give you one. The anger is my natural reaction to idiocy.
Re: irony
Date: 2005-03-10 01:34 am (UTC)Re: irony
Date: 2005-03-10 02:16 am (UTC)LOLZ U R NOT VERY SMART RR U??? YOU NEED PROFESONAL HELP!!
Again, there are quite a few argument styles available other than argument by bald assertion. Have you considered any of the alternatives? No? If you must stick to this argument style, learning to spell, even when you are under stress, might be helpful.
I'm at risk of an aneurysm if I continue to involve myself in this.
Surely this supports my suggestion that you need some sort of professional help.
Clearly, you didn't understand what I meant by that. The reason I don't think she's very smart is that she didn't want me posting on here anymore, and thought that she would be able to stop it by banning me, but here I am... still posting.
Again, this is only one theory, and you've offered no supporting evidence to favor your theory over any other theory.
I think you've having trouble with this logic stuff. You said, "This situation is explained by A." I replied, "Have you consider B?" And now you've replied, "Clearly you didn't understand what I meant. This situation is explained by A."
I have to admit, argument by repeated bald assertion is a little different than mere argument by bald assertion, but it's not really what I was hoping for when I suggested that you consider alternatives.
I never said I was smarter than anyone, but I am definitely right.
You were right not to say you were smarter than anyone? I tend to agree.
I meant to use dribble, as in the worthless, unimportant foam coming out of of all your mouths.
I'd stick to that story, if I were you. It's much better than admitting that you're illiterate. And keep up the leet-speak and all capital letters, since that can only enhance your credibility.
The anger is my natural reaction to idiocy.
I'd be angry, too, if I found that I had been such an idiot, particularly in public. You have my sympathies.
Adrian
Re: irony
Date: 2005-03-08 09:30 pm (UTC)Also, I think the word you were looking for was "drivel", not "dribble", although one is left to wonder if there is any evidence anywhere that you would recognize a well expressed thought if you saw one. Certainly no public entry in your journal suggests such a thing. As for what you've written here, you might note that argument by bald assertion is not the only argument form available do you.
Also, I have to say that this venom that seems to consume you is troubling to see. Have you considered seeking some sort of professional help?
Adrian