Okay, this has nothing to do with practicality or programming or anything, and I have no real opinion on the subject in general. But something about the argument struck me as funny.
Why would you assume that just by being on DW people have any affinity at all for the poster and his/her social community? Granted that DW will be much smaller than LJ, but LJ has many, many communities (in the broader sense of the word, not the individual community function) that have absolutely nothing to do with one another, and in some cases are very hostile to one another. Perfect example being the elections for a community member to LJ position a while back--look at the amount of bashing certain candidates got because they were "fandom" candidates, and look at the fans bashing back. The use of the same platform and the commitment to be relatively civil while doing it does not necessarily mean that all the people using it have anything in common (or even want to have anything in common!) with other users of the service. All it means is that they object to ads and/or want to know who's running their platform and that they can trust them. Granted, we want DW to have a community feel to it. That doesn't mean that it's going to be just one community, and that doesn't mean that everyone's going to want to participate in that community. >> On 2/3/09, Erica Frank wrote: > That is part of the idea, and a substantial one. Spiderable-by-entry > would be very helpful. But without a secondary "locked to logged-in > users only," it fails to provide what it's most helpful for--a way for > some posts to be totally public, and others limited to people who've > shown some affinity, however vague, for the poster or her social > community. _______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
