facejournal and sleep

[jazzfish]

cleolinda explains just what the heck is going on with LJ and Facebook and Twitter: basically, LJ's owners figure the number of people coming onboard LJ through Facebook and Twitter will outweigh the number of people fleeing to other sites such as Dreamwidth. And the fleeing users were the ones who were disabling all the useful (for advertising) privacy-invasive features anyway, so they won't be much missed.

(There's also a side trip through the creepiness of Facebook's new "Stalk this person" feature. Which just ick no. I anticipate that by this time next year I'll have done what I can to purge my Facebook account as well.)

---

Still tired. Still writing up Key West (it was awesome). Likely to go home and faceplant for eight hours and wake up around two in the morning. Sleeping on planes works better when you can lean back in your seat, and when the guy next to you doesn't insist on trying to ram his elbow into your ribs, and when the flight doesn't arrive 45 minutes early thus shorting you out of three-quarters of an hour of uneasy but still much missed sleep. Bleh.

(Lessons learned: first, stay the hell away from Airtran. Second, with transit costs BWI may not actually be all that much cheaper than National. Third, do not rely on transit to get home from BWI.)

Comments

[jsciv.livejournal.com]

Huh? I don't follow the analogy. LJ isn't making any motions toward removing the account locks on content.

[rbandrews]

My comment was in response to a comment about Facebook, not Livejournal. Facebook made all profiles default to publicly viewable, which is evil.

If you're going to change the way privacy works on a community site, don't. If you can't do that, then at the very least make it opt in, so doing nothing means nothing changes for you.

[jsciv.livejournal.com]

Well, two things:

1) LJ hasn't done this and people complaining that their trusted friends can now repost to facebook is more of an indictment of the trust of their friends than of LJ (though FB has been widely panned on its privacy policies long enough that I thing that it IS valid to say "you should have thought first"). My remarks are and have been consistently about LJ and the extreme reaction that I feel has been stronger than warranted.

2) Given the number of people I know whose names I just typed in and got bupkis on that link you posted (even people who I know wouldn't know enough to change defaults), the case may be overstated.

[(Anonymous)]

I wasn't replying to your remarks; I replied to a comment about Facebook. Why are we even talking about this?

[rbandrews]

I wasn't replying to your remarks; I replied to a comment about Facebook. Why are we even talking about this?

Sorry, that was me; new phone hadn't logged in yet. About the search thing, if you don't find that creepy then I'm not sure we have enough common ground to even talk about privacy.

[jsciv.livejournal.com]

It's downstream from my remarks, which was my context. :)

If we get onto Facebook then yes, I agree about their fluid definition of "privacy" being a problem. The specific comment was on that site: if I want to try and be a creepy stalker site then people trying my site should at least hit someone they're interested in stalking while visiting it! :)

But now that I read the thread back I see that my context wasn't clear so it's probably worth dropping for another thread.