@incohearent made a post asking questions about tumblr so I'm gonna do my best to answer them. Any more questions, go ahead and ask :)
Your question:
On that note, I do have a question regarding utility. If I unprivate all of my old posts, and then delete them, would they still be rebloggable? You see, I set a lot of my old posts to private, but that made it impossible to reblog them. So I'm laughing at my mistake. Tumblr added this feature to protect some of its users that require that type of protection against other users, but I don't. So, I will use the feature that I am supposed to use. And so… as I take it… the feature I am meant to use is the delete function, right? /falls into the same trap as before
You want to do something but you're not sure which function to use to make it possible, right? I'm going to break down your paragraph for a second here. What you described is,
Old posts which have been privated
Unprivate them
Then delete them
The closest tumblr equivalent is:
Old posts which have been privated (made unrebloggable)
Unprivate them (they are rebloggable again)
Then delete them ("delete" them)
(Also I'm a little confused, because surely you can delete any of your posts, doesn't matter if they're privated or not)
But here's the thing, tumblr doesn't HAVE a private setting. I know you can do this in dreamwidth and that means that if you are not logged in, private posts don't even show up on your page if you are accessing the public version. (because they're PRIVATE)
But although things have changed, tumblr at its core is designed for sharing. A post is meant to be reblogged and "tumble" from dashboard to dashboard as it makes its way through differnt users. Good for visibility if you're an artist or creator. Bad if you just posted a 1000 word vent on how terrible your day was. It just so happens that everyone inherently understands that reblogging the vent and showing it to all YOUR followers is a dick move. But it's entirely POSSIBLE for the vent to get reblogged and seen by strangers because of the way the site was designed.
Unfortunately, there is no fix-all delete button. I've reblogged some of your art, right? If you deleted those posts and purged your account of them, and made double sure that they've been removed, you could still then go onto my account and see the images because I hit the reblog button one time.
Your username is displayed in the post that I reblogged, and then someone who looks at my page, sees your drawing, and goes to your page. The drawing isn't available on your page any more, but the post still links back to you.
There is deactivation of your account. Where even if a thousand people reblogged your post … The name at the top is now a dead link and no one can get to your page at all because it's deactivated. No one could reblog your posts any more because they can't see your page. No one could DM you because your account doesn't exist. BUT THE REBLOGGED IMAGES WILL STILL BE SITTING THERE ON THE PAGES OF ANYONE WHO REBLOGGED THEM
In fact, I know someone who was forced to deactivate their tumblr account by their parents, then later came back. All their stuff was lost to them, they couldn't sign in, there wasn't a secret backup waiting somwehere, but they COULD search through all their friends' accounts and see the reblogs we had made of their stuff, and collect them back onto their page by way of yet more reblogs. So that their own art was displayed on their own page again.
Crazy, isn't it?!
The only true "delete" here is to …. i guess …. look at all the usernames of the people who reblogged and contact them individually, asking them to delete their versions of your posts. (which i would be more than happy to do, but …… how many people have reblogged you? do you have the time to chase up everyone? what if someone forgot their password and just abandoned their account and started a new one and can't log in to that old one any more?)
Second thing I want to add is, now that you have this information about the chain of reblogs and nothing ever disappearing ……….. Imagine for a second that someone posts misinformation or something controversial. The post gets seen and FLOODED by all manner of people. Very quickly it becomes nothing to do with the original post, just people fighting each other in reblogs.
The original poster might even know the correct information or change their mind about things, but even if they stand firm in what they said, it's not fun at all to get spam notifications as the post crawls through the whole internet and each new person adds their own opinion to it.
For whatever reason, maybe a year later, someone comes across the post and gets another spike in attantion. Even if they are a different person now and think different things, and deleted the original post out of embarrassment, there are still COPIES of the original post floating around because of reblogs.
Even if it's not controversial, asking a question about something could mean you end up getting answers for YEARS afterwards, because everyone's copy of the original post has the same phrasing. There's no way to go back like in reddit and add [SOLVED] to the title to show that no one needs to answer any more.
Also, you had a question about "under the cut"
Yes, if someone you follow decides to post a 1000 word extravaganza, and forgets to cut it, you're scrolling.
Sometimes there are cuts, but this is only when there is a second or third addition to a post via reblogs. Someone takes that 1000 word thing and puts a fun meme picture underneath, then someone else replies to that ……… only then does it get automatically cut by tumblr. It's possible that ten different people each add their own 1000 word reaction to that initial post, and you'd be scrolling forever. So it gets cut when there's reblogs involved.
Sorry if that sounds way too much. if tumblr isn't for you, that's okay too.
I suppose you could make use of the time your put into making the page look snazzy, and set all posts to unrebloggable so that it's just an art portfolio? Only likes and comments, with comments being entirely deletable? Idk. Your choice.
1 note
·
View note
Actually going insane over the implications of Jason asking Dick to be the Robin to his Batman in Battle for the Cowl.
Like I initially took it at the purely surface-level of Jason wanting a partner in the general sense. Which made sense, it's a huge responsibility and a lonely one so an assistant/sidekick/partner seems a no-brainer if you can get one.
But then I really thought about it, because Jason is not asking Dick to be his partner in the general sense; he's not even asking Dick to be his Nightwing. He's asking Dick to be his Robin.
And they both know exactly what Jason means: "Be the light to my darkness. Be the smile to my scowl. Be the hope to my fear. "
He's saying "Be 'Robin'; be the embodiment of Love and Justice and Goodness. Be the exceptional person that you have always been. Be the slightly-less exceptional person that I was when I wore your colors. Be the person that I was in the process of becoming and might have been (or might still be), if only Joker hadn't clipped my wings."
He's saying "I am prepared to become vengeance, become the Night. And I will go further than Bruce ever dared to, because it is what is needed. I will be the necessary evil. But you don't have to be. If Batman is Gotham's curse, Robin has always been its blessing. I will be the brutal punishment to our world, and I am asking you to be its incandescent gift."
He's saying, "Be for me, what we were for Him. Be my anchor, my comfort, my hope. Remind me what it's all for, why it's all worth it. And remind yourself as well."
He's saying "Be 'Robin' again--for both of our sakes."
360 notes
·
View notes