I don't much care why people read me. But friending is a different link

But it isn't. LJ gave your "reading list" a stupid name, but that doesn't change its function. When I friend somebody, ALL it means is that i want to read their blog every day. It doesn't mean that I'd seek them out in a crowded room, it doesn't mean I'm their buddy. It just means I am using the only mechanism LJ provides to read somebody's blog regularly.

I realize I'm being inflexible in my opinion, but this is the Internet, dammit. If you don't want strangers reading/commenting on your LJ, lock it. But if you don't lock it, don't bitch because strangers do read and comment: that is what makes it LJ and not a file on your hard drive.

I don't much care why people read me. But friending is a different link

Huh. I think of friending as strictly a means to read repeatedly. If there is some actual connection, I'm curious, but it's way beyond optional.

You never wonder about the people that friended you?

Not really. I meet some obscure need they have, either for fic or odd commentary. I rarely friends-lock anything, because if it's something I don't want all of God and nature to see, I don't post it.

When I friend somebody, ALL it means is that i want to read their blog every day.

That's all it means to you. It's perfectly possible to friend people and never read them (so they can see your locked posts, for instance), and to not friend people and read them regularly (which I totally do). Don't confuse your usage of the mechanism with a) its potential and b) other people's usage.

If you don't want strangers reading/commenting on your LJ, lock it. But if you don't lock it, don't bitch because strangers do read and comment: that is what makes it LJ and not a file on your hard drive.

I'm assuming this has nothing to do with me, right? Because my bitching skills are a little more pointed than "people should."

Yes, this is the internet. But you still haven't explained to me why it's weird to be curious about your audience.

eta:

I think of friending as strictly a means to read repeatedly. If there is some actual connection, I'm curious, but it's way beyond optional.

But there is some actual connection -- they friended you. As I said, it doesn't reflect to me all of the readers, but I'm curious about what makes someone click that button, and how they landed where they landed.

But you still haven't explained to me why it's weird to be curious about your audience.

But you aren't saying "I'm curious about my audience"; you're saying "my audience owes it to me to explain themselves."

you're saying "my audience owes it to me to explain themselves."

You're attaching very hard to the "should," and I take that responsibility upon myself -- it would be really cool if people told me why they friended me.

Are we done now?

I'm still not sure why you're equating people who've friended me and audience still, but I don't have any other words to explain the distinction.

I guess I'm saying that to me, they're the same thing; people who've friended me are people who read me.

I think LJ's filtering option (as well as the use of "friend") makes it feel different from a random blog roll. There are people here I really like, and enjoy reading whom I've never "friended" on lj, because it felt like overstepping.

[link]

Next on the gay agenda....

people who've friended me are people who read me

How can you possibly know that the two sets are identical? I've been told before that I don't read LJs that I patently do read, and I find the attachment to that statement peculiar. My friendslist is most precisely who can read my generically friendslocked posts. However, with filters, it need neither be who I read, nor who can read all my locked posts, and I routinely read LJs that aren't on my list.

It seems a bit shortsighted to lend any weight to their equivalence -- not quite as naive as assuming that your posts on the internet are only going to a known subset, but ... along those lines.