DW: Invitation to psychodrama?

[jbsegal]

Is it just me, or is Dreamwidth's notification (and publishing of the info in your profile) that A has not only 'given you access' but also 'subscribed' to you inviting and escalating the already rampant (though largely settled down in my circles, but not entirely) psychodrama about "I friended {foo} but they haven't friended me back"?

Now you can have "They don't read me AND they don't let me read them" or "they've STOPPED reading me" or "They're stalking me, but I can't read their stuff" or whatever. I'm really not seeing how this is a benefit over filters/Default View where you can stop reading someone's writings (by taking them off of whatever filters you read) but still keep them as a 'friend'.

Anyone?

(Xposted: DW->LJ)

Comments

[gothgeekgirl]

Oh- I see your confusion: "Allow access" means "allow access to protected content", not access to the entire journal. Anyone can read all public entries on the site.

[miss_chance]

Near as I can tell that's only going to be an issue until they implement the "Reading Filters" like LJ's. Then you will be able to "allow access" according to filters, and "subscribe" to someone, but then not actually put them on any filters you read, if you feel socially obligated to reciprocate.

[rivenwanderer.livejournal.com]

I think it could be useful to follow-but-not-grant-access-to someone when you're the one initiating the on-dreamwidth "relationship" as a signal of interest in a person's writing without demanding a close friend-like relationship (at least right away). That's how I'd probably go about interacting with authors I liked, for example.

I also would say that people who want to be drama queens are going to be drama queens no matter what the technological setup is :p

[jbsegal.livejournal.com]

The ability is totally useful. The NOTIFICATION/Publication of the USE of the ability is what I'm talking about...

Fine, so I read but don't trust {foo}. They don't need to KNOW that, I think.

Make sense?

[rivenwanderer.livejournal.com]

Hm, I don't know. Say I follow-but-don't-grant-access Ye Random Famous Author. If that info is public, it can be a social cue YRFA can use to determine that I'm a fan and not someone they met at a con and need to figure out whether or not to friend me back. So I think there's at least some usefulness for the info to be public. Whether that outweighs the potential for drama/awkward, I don't know--presumably that's one of the things the Dreamwidth experiment will uncover :)

[geekchick]

Yup, I've been thinking pretty much the same thing.

it just sounds like they have...

[happypete.livejournal.com]

resolved the overloaded of the word "friend." with filters, you can subscribe to someone, but not actually read them, too...it's a cheesy side-step of drama, and likely to cause trouble.

[charleshaynes.livejournal.com]

To anyone who gets worked up about any of that shit I have only one thing to say - "Get the fuck over yourselves for God's sake."

Did none of them ever leave middle school? Jesus Christ.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

yeah. i'm a bit happier not having 'friend' overloaded.

I created Marcia on DW, but I think I may wait until I can also create Vvalkyri.

[tisiphone.livejournal.com]

I actually find the removal of context from "friendship" to be quite useful. I do wish they'd do combined emails though.

[pocketpolina.livejournal.com]

The solution is clearly Xanax or getting out of the house, or both. Maybe it's because I am too lazy for psychodrama.

[roadnotes.livejournal.com]

I daresay it could cause psychodrama, if one let it. On the other hand, anyone who gets bent because I'm not granting them access is, by my current lights, too easily bent for me to want to let them close to me.