![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jazzfishThe 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 02:42 pm (UTC)THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT OKAY AND IT SURE AS SHIT DOES NOT JUSTIFY MAKING IT EASIER FOR THEM TO DO IT
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 03:18 pm (UTC)(Well, that plus all LJ coding is now done by lj.ru, and as someone else put it, "I swear to god there's no sense of why anyone would lock anything on the Russian side.")
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 02:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 03:04 pm (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 06:40 pm (UTC)Please don't think that I'm not listening: I have thought a lot about your points and I just feel like we don't have the same conclusions on the matter.
As far as telling people "you shouldn't put anything on the internet..." being blaming the victim: I have two responses to that. My first is that I don't think this is just an internet thing. I don't think you should say anything in a public room that you wouldn't want others to hear or that you should tell tales to people you don't feel you can trust. The internet is just the latest medium of communications, to which I think the generic rule of (to borrow a phrase from PAX, going on this very weekend) "don't be a dick" applies.
My second response is that I also accept that mistakes will happen. I accept that sometimes I will say something I shouldn't. That sometimes my trust is misplaced. That sometimes someone will overhear me when I thought I was alone. That's life. This incarnation is that someone could crosspost something that I did not intend to be crossposted. But all of this could have happened before.
Finally, I'd like to raise one more point that I think is relevant. I've seen a couple of "this makes it so much easier" responses, and that true, but we've already seen LJ learn and react by re-adjusting the tab order to exclude the ticky boxes. They're not making a unilateral change and leaving people stuck with it: they're listening and adapting the service to what people want. I think the reaction and feedback to LJ are important, but I think they're listening and that they will adjust the parameters as necessary. It's clear that many users WANTED the crossposting so they added it. It also seems clear that there are privacy concerns for some people. My guess is that they'll address them.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 06:56 pm (UTC)I kind of expected that. It is, after all, what FB does: real names on accounts... I don't know how else it would communicate what account you've linked to. But that's more of a rant against FB in my opinion. :)
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 07:22 pm (UTC)In comments at DW,
I really really hope they're listening and making changes based on user feedback (the tab order fix is a small positive sign). I've seen mention of this possibly being a result of a contract between FB/Twitter and LJ; that would explain why a) there's absolutely no 'disable for my journal' option, and b) even if you don't have it enabled you can't get rid of the %&$ check boxes without resorting to CSS hackery. I'm trying to reserve judgement for another week.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 07:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-03 01:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 11:44 pm (UTC)I would be more concerned over accidental sharing then intentional malfeasance. While I don't post thru the lj website (I use a 3rd party client for posting) I do have to use the website to comment or reply. Those buttons are too damn "conveniently" placed.
And omg, I'm so freakin' sick of seeing those damn little facebook and twitter bugs everywhere I go on the web these days. Wish someone would create a browser plug-in that would strip those buggers off not the sites, just my viewing. Kinda like a V-chip that blocks too much sharing.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-04 10:36 pm (UTC)And, YES. I figure if people want to be jerks they're going to be and there's nothing to be done to stop them. It's the ones who don't realise that they're about to do something that's gonna cause problems that I'm worried about.