LJ changes bring LJ musings ...
Sep. 1st, 2010 07:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
For my part, I'm not too perturbed about the Facebook and Twitter things, since a couple of my posts went a little viral over the last two years and exactly nothing bad happened as a result. But then, I live in the happy place of having no kids, working as a creative where everyone already thinks I am a little mad, not writing actual porn, and not being able to remember when my last flocked post was, because this is not the place where I post personal stuff.
So I won't be making a list of grumbles about what I'll do if ... because it doesn't really affect me.
But I still think LJ has made a major miscalculation. They've taken a step in the Google/Facebook direction, where the underlying sentiment is that if you want something to be private, it shouldn't be on the internet. I believe that LJ is misreading itself here. For every person who uses their LJ to communicate publicly, there is at least one who uses it to communicate privately. So while the first type of user is like me, where stories, ideas, rants and sometimes just rubbish form the content of posts, the second type of user is someone who is hoping to speak to a small group of people. They may be people that he or she knows and who are far away or busy, so LJ provides a useful forum, or perhaps they are looking for new people who can talk to them and make them feel less alone, which is something that each and every one of us has done at some point in our lives and not everyone has the luxury of a large family or peer group to find those people in.
So for those private people, what LJ has done here is said that your desires are less important than the desires of those who comment on your posts. Now there is a case to be made that comments made on an LJ belong to the commenter and not the poster (indeed, it's the reason I did not import comments to Dreamwidth when I copied much of my LJ over), but picking them up and taking them outside is like you making a phonecall in the middle of a private conversation we're having at my house, so that suddenly the conversation is you, me, and the West Dapto Basketball Team, which is not what I was expecting when I invited you round for a private chat about whether or not your herbal deodorant was working.
And again, when I say that, it's a joke, but for people who are dealing with serious issues, it's not.
For some people I know of on LJ, there are very serious issues indeed. I know of people who have had fandom issues cause them grief in everything from their marriages to working with children. The solution to that in the past has been to make their LJs wholly private, but this new setting removes that certainty of privacy from their hands to the hands of anyone they allow to comment on their posts, because any comment can include a quote, and now go immediately outside the flock.
It is true that in the past people could copy and paste from behind flock anyway, but it was not as easy, and not as certain to have come from the original poster.
So now we have a system where people are reliant on others not to be twats. Which I must say is often a safe thing to rely on, the vast majority of people being actually quite decent*. But in battles of child custody, or in serious investigations into the backgrounds of those wanting to work in many agencies, the rules are not the same.
Now it may be that I have the wrong end of the stick and that somewhere in the chaos that is LJ settings is a box marked: Hide me from Facebook and Twitter, for I care not for them! But I canna find it if it's there.
I do believe that it is something LJ will fix, because they seem to not be complete bastards (unlike Facebook), but I also believe it is something they should have not broken in the first place, and which a small amount of thought would have kept whole.
* In three years on LJ I seem to have attracted about three people who seem to hate me, which at one a year is not actually bad. It appears to bring them great joy. Bless!
So I won't be making a list of grumbles about what I'll do if ... because it doesn't really affect me.
But I still think LJ has made a major miscalculation. They've taken a step in the Google/Facebook direction, where the underlying sentiment is that if you want something to be private, it shouldn't be on the internet. I believe that LJ is misreading itself here. For every person who uses their LJ to communicate publicly, there is at least one who uses it to communicate privately. So while the first type of user is like me, where stories, ideas, rants and sometimes just rubbish form the content of posts, the second type of user is someone who is hoping to speak to a small group of people. They may be people that he or she knows and who are far away or busy, so LJ provides a useful forum, or perhaps they are looking for new people who can talk to them and make them feel less alone, which is something that each and every one of us has done at some point in our lives and not everyone has the luxury of a large family or peer group to find those people in.
So for those private people, what LJ has done here is said that your desires are less important than the desires of those who comment on your posts. Now there is a case to be made that comments made on an LJ belong to the commenter and not the poster (indeed, it's the reason I did not import comments to Dreamwidth when I copied much of my LJ over), but picking them up and taking them outside is like you making a phonecall in the middle of a private conversation we're having at my house, so that suddenly the conversation is you, me, and the West Dapto Basketball Team, which is not what I was expecting when I invited you round for a private chat about whether or not your herbal deodorant was working.
And again, when I say that, it's a joke, but for people who are dealing with serious issues, it's not.
For some people I know of on LJ, there are very serious issues indeed. I know of people who have had fandom issues cause them grief in everything from their marriages to working with children. The solution to that in the past has been to make their LJs wholly private, but this new setting removes that certainty of privacy from their hands to the hands of anyone they allow to comment on their posts, because any comment can include a quote, and now go immediately outside the flock.
It is true that in the past people could copy and paste from behind flock anyway, but it was not as easy, and not as certain to have come from the original poster.
So now we have a system where people are reliant on others not to be twats. Which I must say is often a safe thing to rely on, the vast majority of people being actually quite decent*. But in battles of child custody, or in serious investigations into the backgrounds of those wanting to work in many agencies, the rules are not the same.
Now it may be that I have the wrong end of the stick and that somewhere in the chaos that is LJ settings is a box marked: Hide me from Facebook and Twitter, for I care not for them! But I canna find it if it's there.
I do believe that it is something LJ will fix, because they seem to not be complete bastards (unlike Facebook), but I also believe it is something they should have not broken in the first place, and which a small amount of thought would have kept whole.
* In three years on LJ I seem to have attracted about three people who seem to hate me, which at one a year is not actually bad. It appears to bring them great joy. Bless!
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 09:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 09:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 09:50 am (UTC)*shows LJ two very specific fingers*
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 09:53 am (UTC)no subject
If someone associates your LJ name with your legal name and he/she is a friend of someone in Abuse Team management, it will be allowed, even encouraged: I know from personal experience.
The most important clause of the Terms of Service is not written down: "LJ Management doesn't care what the Terms of Service says, if it doesn't like you, LJ Management will do what it wants."
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 09:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 10:00 am (UTC)I have to say that I do not know if there is any automatic link back to the post. I should find that out.
People who WANT to automatically copy across platforms can choose it as their default option for all LJ use.
What there is not, and should be, is an opt out feature to allow LJ users to say 'No thanks, I don't want people to be able to automatically go to another forum from here.'
Facebook reposting
From:Re: Facebook reposting
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 10:14 am (UTC)If I have this wrong in any way, hopefully someone else will clarify, but this is what I understand.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 10:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 10:12 am (UTC)They're like a kid who is SO EXCITED because he's fixed the sliding window and only realises that nailing it open is not the best solution when mum talks him through it slowly.
I imagine by the weekend there will be a big 'Oh, yeah ... oops ...'
Apparently that moment has already come about the slashes in tags and they are fixing it as we speak. Sigh.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 10:10 am (UTC)Because unlike DW, LJ also doesn't give you the option to 'subscribe' to interesting journals that you want to read, but don't necessarily want to give access to your own things. And frankly, trying to remember which custom privacy group to use for things is tedious. So there are people who I have 'friended' for reasons other than to allow access to my musings, and I'd prefer to keep watching them be interesting.
Also, given how they appear to have structured the settings for this (based on what I've read so far), the potential for accidentally crossposting a private entry is reasonably high. This may be erroneous information.
No - I've seen nothing to allow people to lock their journals against this. I'd also like the damned ticky boxes and 'helpful hints' to go away.
My ire may be compounded by the fact that I am actually passionately opposed to FB, in a truly violent kind of way. T I can see might have its uses - but I am so far unconvinced, and can't see why people can't deal with NOT having either connected to EVERYTHING!
Ah well, I may be a minority, but I'm an angry, annoyed and aggravated minority.
Bring on the revolution, I say!
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 10:15 am (UTC)Le jour de gloire est arrivé
Aux armes citoyens! Formez vos bataillons!
Marchons, marchons,
Qu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons.
(Have torn one shoulder of shirt to expose breast and grabbed flag!)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 10:32 am (UTC)There's a certain share-across-platforms mentality that assumes: 1) everyone on the internet is male and 2) men can't be stalked, with some 3) the internet provides people with welcome publicity for their ideas, so everyone will be OK with giving up some privacy and ownership of their own creative work. So each time they figure out a way to share more, they do it.
It's not a matter of why we use the service. What other blogging service makes it possible for commenters to choose what gets cross-posted? I am pretty sure it's the author of the original post who gets to choose whether comments go to FB or Twitter!
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 11:31 am (UTC)And yes, giving that power wholly to the commenter is the most disturbing part of the whole thing, to me.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 10:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 11:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 11:35 am (UTC)I really hope that LJ WILL fix it soon. It's just so. not. cool.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 11:45 am (UTC)But no booing! It is the right of everyone on the internet to take umbrage wherever they will! For my part, I prefer to expend my energies hating Glenn Beck.
And yeah, not cool is exactly the right phrase.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 12:03 pm (UTC):P
No, kidding aside, I'm not on Facebook (although you know I am on Twitter), so I'm not overly concerned about privacy settings. But personally I think it's really stupid that they have to do it on the comments as well. I think on the new post page should be enough. (Even then, I'm slightly bothered by the way they seem to be jumping the bandwagon - following the so-called 'trend' - but I guess this is inevitable.)
Although... correct me if I'm wrong (and I definitely can be wrong about this) but I've always had the impression that LJ is a different animal altogether than the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and whatnot. I always see it something more like Wordpress - a blogging tool - but more social. And while LJ has plenty of communities, but I still think the way comms function differ greatly from, say, a group on FB. So I don't see why LJ should change so much to keep up with these trends. What are they aiming with them anyway? More users? More flexibility? More attention? I have no idea!
Anyway, the settings need to be fixed. The users should still get the option to display or not display these repost to FB and Twitter buttons!
Also, LJ always says that they did surveys and beta-testing with old and new users, but I don't think they really do it. If the number of hate comments directed at them is any indication, they really fail at market research. This baffles me.
Anyway. I can't believe I abandoned some 2700+ books out there in the selling floor, waiting to be displayed, to write this comment for you! XD
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 12:31 pm (UTC)I agree with you, the fundamental vibe of LJ is just different to FB, and it's silly to pretend it's not. I think you're on the money about the 'testing' -- quite often 'research' ends up meaning 'my mates', and I suspect that may be the case here.
Go and play with your books! I am going to finish my new Pratchett!
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 01:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 01:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 01:48 pm (UTC)and completely nuts in the nice way obviouslyand so, so lovely. *luffles*♥
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 01:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 01:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 02:00 pm (UTC)And don't be too put out about people disliking me, goodness knows I'm not. It makes perfect sense and is rather comforting. If everyone liked me all the time, then clearly I would not actually be saying or doing anything meaningful at all. I have been a bit miffed a few times when people told basic fibs, but then I decided that since they were enjoying themselves so much, I may as well leave them their joy in it, my ego is more than healthy enough to take a few knocks!
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 04:02 pm (UTC)You'd think from the general protest at Facebook and the mass facepalm of Google Buzz that social network developers would learn to put one there to begin with. Grr.
In other, happier news, I am currently working my way backwards in Chinese history and wantonly adding dragons everywhere. It's great fun!
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 04:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 04:04 pm (UTC)in vegasunder lock, stays there.I wish LJ handled these foot-in-mouth situations better though and didn't wait 24+ hours usually to post an update, since by that time people have already decided enough is enough and switched to DW or something.
Am far more anxious about pingbacks - for one thing, I don't want to wonder about all the reasons why people might have mentioned a post of mine under flock.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 04:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 05:14 pm (UTC)There was a time, about two years ago or so where god forbid that this option existed, cause I had haters, and probably still do, but hopefully we're all too mature and busy to spend time doing nasty things to each other. But this is a new day, new LJ and so now I feel fine with the people I let see me.
I personally find it reprehensible that potential and current employers find it acceptable to google their employees, find their fbs and twitters and base one's prospective and/or continued employment on such things. Granted, it's common sense, I think, to not post remarks such as "I work at ABC Company in Des Moines, Iowa, and my boss is a fan of S&M mouse-porn," but still, to have someone make a decision on you because you twitter, "Whoo, I like me some Molson!" seems pretty stupid to me.
Okay, I digress. And I always ramble in your LJ!
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 01:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 03:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 05:49 am (UTC)But you are HUGELY lovely to say so, and coming from you, who truly knows the awesome, I am beaming at such a lovely compliment!
no subject
Date: 2010-09-03 05:59 pm (UTC)Oh yeah, ignoring the main issue, since I wish most people were decent but know that money makes the world go round and everything unbroken has to be fixed.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-09 07:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-09 11:33 pm (UTC)