As I sadly foretold, not only the "sharelink" buttons will stay here, but the option to disable them won't be implemented. No big surprise, here, because it was evident since the very beginning that these links were not just simple "buttons", but traced clearly the path that deviantART is willing to follow.

So much for the naive and good-faithed concern of some moderator who heatedly told me that deviantART loves me and that, in my sarcastic journals, I was "missing a piece of critical information" because an option was in the making. Yeah, sure, one of these days.

I didn't miss at all the "piece of critical information". It was in $chix0r's journal of some days ago, in which the girl told the upset community that "there will be an opt-out implemented" in this comment [link] Fact is, I know better, having worked myself for years in the management of a large virtual community, and the subsequent intervention of DA Boss Himself $spyed, "SIX EASY POINTS; Why Disabling Share HURTS YOU BIG" [link] widely confirmed what I thought. In fact, after Da Boss intervention, not a single line was spoken anymore about the opt-out implementation for days.

(I won't bore you to death with my past experience. You can't even imagine how many times I saw this happen: the moderators are the link between management and community, and they speak truly. Then the money-holders come in with a different tackle on things and - boom! - silence.)

So I was waiting. Frankly, I didn't expect any surprises. I was expecting respectful official silence, necessary for the community to digest the diktat of the money-holder and maybe drown things with time (as usually happens). Gee, I was so wrong!

I was following $chix0r's journal with a smile, just to see how the management would take back the promise, but I was totally surprised when I stumbled upon these lines (the first "written" ones after the worshipping silence).

First, `realillusions goes right into science-fiction realm saying: "Unfortunately, if this is what it takes to appease what is probably 5% at the absolute most of the community [...] then so be it. But it really is sad."

(Here it is: [link] )

Hey! All the community was asking for was an option! Get real! Nobody ever asked to take down those links that you seem to adore (even if it would've been the only artistically sensitive thing to do, but this is my opinion)! So you're saying that it is SAD that artists here have an option to choose how their art can be diffused? This speaks volumes...

But this is nothing. Go to that same link and see with your eyes what $chix0r (yep, the same one who "promised") answers:

"To be honest, I share your thoughts and we're still pondering what to do about it. I feel that disabling links goes against everything we stand for."

Huh? DISABLING LINKS GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING WE STAND FOR???

You serious? So, let me re-word that... "everything deviantART stands for" is giving thousands of facebookids the opportunity to click a button on whatever art posted on deviantART and link it almost everywhere, so other hundreds of facebookids can "oooh" and "aaaw" over it and then right-click it and use it on their lovely videos on u-tube or as avatars in their online role-playing games?

This is everything deviantART stands for? Quite a dAramatic wording for some sharelink buttons, don't you think? Shucks, I really thought otherwise... I mean, I would've thought something else, a bit more important maybe, should be everything deviantART stands for. Like, for example, a bit of respect toward the artists that contributed so much to make this website the wonderful website it still is and it will still be (not for much longer, sadly, once the facebookids crowd will swarm over it).

Yeah, respect. Quite a strange word here, lately. And something totally out-of-place in this situation. Yes, because this is about business, not art. These last days I saw so many good artists and photographers go away from this site, and one of the most used explanations was "they will notice that they are loosing artists".

Yeah, you are right, they will. Fact is, they won't care. Because this is not - as many of the serious people enraged by this are thinking - a "self-destructive" move. Not in the tiniest bit. Because, while it is artistically self-destructive, it's also a big business improvement. It will bring thousands of artistic-illitterate kids from facebook and the likes here, sending away real artists. The big money lies in traffic, not in art. In fact, I would go as far as saying that if real artists and photographers/models will go away, they will do the new deviantART a favor.

Others are saying that, when deviantART realizes that it's losing so many talented people, it will get a reality check and re-think all the whole mess.

Sorry again, they won't get no reality check. They don't need one, because they already have it previewed and they balanced the consequences. It would be pure madness otherwise, and they are not crazy at all. They may not know much about art - and this now is blatant beyond any possible discussion - but they do know a lot about business, and this can't be denied either: a move like this one (spreading deviantART's legs to the world of the social networks's kids), is just too big to be implemented without prior planning. And in the planning, I assure you from my past experience, the balance between Lost Deviants / New Deviants has been already taken into consideration.

So, to hell with all the illusions that "deviantART exists because of us" that so many are uttering while in rage: if the "us" means serious artists, this is again wrong. Looking at all this from the business end of the binocular, you, me, a thirteen years old facebookid, a published photographer and a naruto-copying teenager have exactly the same weight. Maybe once deviantART could exist as an artistic website because of artists, but - as it's now very clear - it's not the road they decided to travel.

This, also, is very clear in the words of another administrator of the site, $eStunt, who in another comment states clearly what all this is about (and what it all was about since the very beginning). It's so illuminating that deserves to be highlighted in bold:

"This feature isn't for the convenience of the artist; it's for the convenience of the user--the user who comes to the site and wants to show the world one of the images. Why would we let the artist control the user experience for other people using deviantART?"

(answer, but it's too easy: maybe because the works other people experience are made by the artist? )

- as you can see in the original comment here [link]

Why, thank you, lad! At last someone who dares to tell the truth! Isn't that clear now? Read above!

This move was NOT thought for the convenience of YOU, but for the convenience of the VISITOR, who now CAN LINK WITH A CLICK WHATEVER HE/SHE PLEASES from YOUR gallery and SHARE IT wherever he/she pleases.

At last!

Now, many are bashing poor $eStunt for the stupidity of some of his comments (among these *shines* the fact that he thinks that a non-subscriber is getting this website for free, thus ignoring completely all the ads that are shown on a non-subscribed member pages) and the utter maleducated, supponent and patronizing tones he uses in his last journal "Share This Lunacy" [link] (but, after all, he's 21 and the disrespect and the insults toward the artists are THE NORM here, so why in the world should he be different from his older role-models?) - many are bashing him, as I said above, but in fact I applaud him.

For he's saying what we knew since the very beginning.

So, dear deviantART, I have two questions.

The first is: why give us all the bullshit about "sharing is good to your art" (something so utterly stupid that it can't even be taken into consideration if you have an IQ over ninety), when it would've been far more respectful and just plain intelligent to tell the truth since Day One of the Share Wars?^(*)

The second is: is this really everything you stand for?

I would love an answer. Respect being such a strange thing these parts, as long as it's a serious one I will even take an unpolite answer, as per usual.

Love,
Stefano


_________

_{P.S.: Damn. I promised to myself that I wouldn't use sarcasm, this time. I failed. But how can you NOT use sarcasm when confronted with such things? Tell me, please, because I don't know.}

^(*) <sub>("Share Wars" definition © =andyslade)

Quote of the day:
Imagine an alien, Fox once said, who's come here to identify the planet's dominant form of intelligence. The alien has a look, then chooses. What do you think he picks?
I probably shrugged.
The zaibatsus, Fox said, the multinationals. The blood of a zaibatsu is information, not people. The structure is independent of the individual lives that comprise it. Corporation as life form.
[William Gibson, "New Rose Hotel"]</sub>