Read on Twitter
Lessons learned from this weekend, a thread.
1. Anything on twitter can get magnified out of context.
I knew that, of course, but I haven't actively been factoring the possibility in. The tweet that kicked everything off assumed a context of demographics, conversation style, and familiarity that is far from universal /cont
I knew that, of course, but I haven't actively been factoring the possibility in. The tweet that kicked everything off assumed a context of demographics, conversation style, and familiarity that is far from universal /cont
1 cont/ Out of that specific context, it did not really convey my stance very well nor did its claims apply as broadly as the literal tweet implied.
2. The fundamental issue is extremely personally important to me, and I projected that onto others.
I've been thinking about creator's rights for a long time. It's a background element of my past work, it's active in my current work, and will be central in the future. /cont
I've been thinking about creator's rights for a long time. It's a background element of my past work, it's active in my current work, and will be central in the future. /cont
2 cont/ To me, it ultimately comes down to my ability to decide what happens with the results of my work. It's very clear to me how attempts to circumvent contract or IP ultimately result in attacks on that, and that many justifications people give are rationalizations. /cont
2 cont/ But not everyone sees that, and many have arrived at those stances in relative good faith. And not everyone knows that creator's rights are the central issue.
As a result, I omitted aspects that I think are irrelevant: /cont
As a result, I omitted aspects that I think are irrelevant: /cont
2 cont/ That the journals appear at least to be quite corrupt and rent-seeking and maybe should be replaced, that open access options exist and are great, that a lot of people genuinely can't access the info and everyone would be better off if they could. /cont
2 cont/ I still think those are irrelevant to the central point. But their irrelevance is exactly the case I need to make!
As it was, people somewhat reasonably inferred I had no idea what I was talking about, that I didn't care about their legitimate concerns, etc. /cont
As it was, people somewhat reasonably inferred I had no idea what I was talking about, that I didn't care about their legitimate concerns, etc. /cont
2 cont/ Moving forward, I need to separate out my context from my audience's better, especially on important issues.
To be clear, I still think Sci-Hub is wrong and that many people use these reasons as a bare fig leaf over outright theft. And many replies confirmed that. /cont
To be clear, I still think Sci-Hub is wrong and that many people use these reasons as a bare fig leaf over outright theft. And many replies confirmed that. /cont
2 cont/ But that's not the case for everyone, and I should be speaking to the best in my audience
3. Not everyone uses threads the way we do
As a followup on 1, it was really surreal to me how many times I had to link to other tweets in the same thread in response to replies. And often that helped! My expectation that threads would be checked for context didn't hold. cont/
As a followup on 1, it was really surreal to me how many times I had to link to other tweets in the same thread in response to replies. And often that helped! My expectation that threads would be checked for context didn't hold. cont/
3. cont/ Moving forward, I will make sure tweets survive standalone, or that they are clearly part of a sequence, or use a damn macroblog.
4. Thread muting and blocking are amazing features.
If you unreservedly claim an inalienable right to valuable information regardless of the wishes of the creator (not the same as supporting Sci-Hub!), I'd appreciate it if you just left.
If you unreservedly claim an inalienable right to valuable information regardless of the wishes of the creator (not the same as supporting Sci-Hub!), I'd appreciate it if you just left.
