I'd planned the following as the stirring conclusion to my last entry, but -- as often happens -- then forgot about it until after I'd hit post. So if you've ever wondered why my longer posts tend to trail off....

( comment say bah? )

As I said, I'm offering this as a thought experiment -- a hypothetical proposition about an alternative comment culture (or perhaps a social/technical fork of LJ's comment culture?). I'm not saying that my opt in schema is preferable, or that Dreamwidth should have gone this route, or should change course and implement this system. Frankly, I'm on the fence here myself, and you could make the case that this particular horse has long since left the barn (does that mean my stance could be called equipoise?). Maybe Dreamwidth already considered and rejected this option, for technical or philosophical or legal or business reasons ("forget the horse, that dog won't hunt"); maybe I'd agree with those reasons.

So my point -- and I do have one -- is that I do believe that people whose comments have been imported have a legitimate interest and stake here. Whether or not I personally find merit in any particular person's specific concerns or motives, and regardless of whether I share them myself, the fundamental question of how Dreamwidth balances the interests of DW users importing their journals and people (both users and non-users of DW) whose comments are being imported remains valid and, to my mind, unresolved as a cultural issue. The issue of control over one's comments is fundamental to comment ecologies. And my control over my imported comments -- even if I never choose to exercise it -- feels largely illusory, both presently for my nominal ability to individually delete and with the future "blanket screen all" planned feature. The former is too hyper-granular to be meaningful; conversely the latter sounds too all-or-nothing -- the nuclear option -- to afford more nuanced options. Surely other social and technical alternatives are possible.