That's why I'm talking about this specific account saying specifically that
they won't aggregate if there's a note right on the post. Presumably the
people operating the account would then follow their own specific policy.
(And if not this is a whole different convo.)
I'm not actually stating "I think we should norm things so that
everything's fair game" bc I'm not actually in control of the norms and
have elsewhere already made pretty clear that I think asking before linking
in this kind of newsletter is a better way to go? So.
I just think there's benefit in stating "by the way we will definitely
abide by any notes on your post saying 'don't link this in newsletters'",
because then people can work on the assumption that you're that level of
thoughtful/respectful of the poster's wishes, unless you do something
specific to make that a lie. I think noting that explicitly - for this
newsletter, specifically - has a potential benefit in terms of signalling
attention to those concerns.
Like: there's no way to keep malicious or thoughtless Persons In General
from linking or copying or otherwise using anything public, so if one is
assuming bad faith/indifference then locking is your only way. So I'm not
really bothering to think about those cases. Much like that kind of person
isn't going to be stopped by my having a related works policy, they're also
gonna link anything that isn't locked? So.
no subject
That's why I'm talking about this specific account saying specifically that they won't aggregate if there's a note right on the post. Presumably the people operating the account would then follow their own specific policy. (And if not this is a whole different convo.)
I'm not actually stating "I think we should norm things so that everything's fair game" bc I'm not actually in control of the norms and have elsewhere already made pretty clear that I think asking before linking in this kind of newsletter is a better way to go? So.
I just think there's benefit in stating "by the way we will definitely abide by any notes on your post saying 'don't link this in newsletters'", because then people can work on the assumption that you're that level of thoughtful/respectful of the poster's wishes, unless you do something specific to make that a lie. I think noting that explicitly - for this newsletter, specifically - has a potential benefit in terms of signalling attention to those concerns.
Like: there's no way to keep malicious or thoughtless Persons In General from linking or copying or otherwise using anything public, so if one is assuming bad faith/indifference then locking is your only way. So I'm not really bothering to think about those cases. Much like that kind of person isn't going to be stopped by my having a related works policy, they're also gonna link anything that isn't locked? So.