The ability to lock your posts to a subset of your readers creates an expectation, and culture, of privacy. The ability to broadcast comments made in locked posts breaks that expectation and defies the norms of that culture.
Telling people "you shouldn't put anything anywhere on the internet you don't want someone else to read" is blaming the victim. The weaker version, "if you don't trust people not to abuse this then don't friend them," is still blaming the victim. Don't do it.
Telling people "you shouldn't put anything anywhere on the internet you don't want someone else to read" is blaming the victim. The weaker version, "if you don't trust people not to abuse this then don't friend them," is still blaming the victim. Don't do it.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 05:39 pm (UTC)Strongly agreed! Also, I think that people often miss that there's a distinction between "public" and "publicized." If I'm walking down a busy street in the afternoon talking to my friend about how, I dunno, a coworker of mine is being a dick, that's a "public" comment in the sense that I'm talking about it in a public space where theoretically anyone could hear it.
But that sure as fuck doesn't mean that I'm obliged to be happy if it turns out someone was recording my conversation on the street and then plays it over the office intercom. That's still a hideous dick move, and I still have every right to hate on the person who did it, refuse to talk to them, etc.
And triply so if—in an analogy to a locked post—one of my friends records something I told them in my own living room.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 07:05 pm (UTC)YES. So very much yes. (And then the usual gang of socially-clueless technophiles start rattling on about 'security through obfuscation' and generally Not Getting It, but, well.)
Incidentally, your examples (in the post yesterday and in this comment) have been most helpful in clarifying my own thoughts on this. So, thank you!