First, a note about pingbacks: Pingbacks simply let you know when another LJ user posts an entry (on LJ) that links to one of yours. It does this by adding a screened comment to your entry, which also means you get your usual comment notification. If you take no action, nobody else sees a thing. (You could unscreen the comment, if you want.)
I have no problem with this.
Then there's that Facebook crosspost feature. That's a little more dodgy. Just to make clear what it does and doesn't do (based on Livejournal's FAQ entry called "How do I update my Facebook or Twitter when I post to LiveJournal?"):
Note that I'm taking Livejournal's word on this, perforce, because I deleted my Facebook account a few months ago. (Yes, because of privacy concerns. Funny, that.)
A public comment on the announcement about this sums up the problem pretty well: “Say, for example, you complain about your manager at work under f-lock. Someone can then reply with, "Man, your manager sounds like a bitch", and crosspost that to their Facebook. The possibility for badness is epic.” (I see no problem in linking to or quoting a public post. The main substance of the objections to this is that it tends to publicize information that was intended to be friends-locked.)
Some people have pointed out that a person who can see one of your protected entries can always copy-paste the whole thing. True enough, and that's not even really a technological problem; it's a social problem. If you tell a friend a secret verbally, they can always violate your confidence and spread the "secret" far and wide. No technology can guard against people deliberately breaking trust with you.
However, this setting would automatically and habitually publish one's comments to Facebook, without the person having to take any deliberate action. This makes it very easy to forget about. And totally aside from the way people can leak information by posting things that make it obvious what they're responding to, there are also the people who sometimes quote part of the post they're responding to.
In general, this is a good thing. Heck, I do it myself whenever I feel it's warranted. But until now, we've all done so with the knowledge and understanding that what we copied and quoted was staying on the same page, with the same read permissions.
That's no longer true. Now, if Joe or Jane responds to someone's friends-locked post, their comment can be automatically crossposted to Facebook without my even thinking about it, based on a checkbox they ticked at some point in the past.
Or, more apropos to my life: If I write a locked post, and my friend Stan writes a response that quotes some of my text (because it's the sensible thing to do in that context), Stan can accidentally export my words out to a service that I've deliberately severed all ties with. Even if he'd never consciously, deliberately do so.
That's what bugs so many people about this. That what bugs me about it, too.
My policy has always been that if I post something publicly, with no friends-lock, that means it's intended to be public. Link to it freely, no permission needed. I see no reason to change that policy, and you'll note that I've made this post public.
But to my friends who comment on my journal: Please, don't crosspost my locked stuff to other services. And don't crosspost text that makes it obvious what I must have written, either. I locked it for a reason.
I have no problem with this.
Then there's that Facebook crosspost feature. That's a little more dodgy. Just to make clear what it does and doesn't do (based on Livejournal's FAQ entry called "How do I update my Facebook or Twitter when I post to LiveJournal?"):
- If you set it to crosspost your own entries by default (or automatically), it will do just that — but only for public entries. As I understand it, it will not send your friends-locked posts to other services.
- If you set it to crosspost your comments by default (or automatically), it will crosspost every comment you write... even if that comment is on someone else's journal. Even if that comment is on someone else's friends-locked post.
Note that I'm taking Livejournal's word on this, perforce, because I deleted my Facebook account a few months ago. (Yes, because of privacy concerns. Funny, that.)
A public comment on the announcement about this sums up the problem pretty well: “Say, for example, you complain about your manager at work under f-lock. Someone can then reply with, "Man, your manager sounds like a bitch", and crosspost that to their Facebook. The possibility for badness is epic.” (I see no problem in linking to or quoting a public post. The main substance of the objections to this is that it tends to publicize information that was intended to be friends-locked.)
Some people have pointed out that a person who can see one of your protected entries can always copy-paste the whole thing. True enough, and that's not even really a technological problem; it's a social problem. If you tell a friend a secret verbally, they can always violate your confidence and spread the "secret" far and wide. No technology can guard against people deliberately breaking trust with you.
However, this setting would automatically and habitually publish one's comments to Facebook, without the person having to take any deliberate action. This makes it very easy to forget about. And totally aside from the way people can leak information by posting things that make it obvious what they're responding to, there are also the people who sometimes quote part of the post they're responding to.
In general, this is a good thing. Heck, I do it myself whenever I feel it's warranted. But until now, we've all done so with the knowledge and understanding that what we copied and quoted was staying on the same page, with the same read permissions.
That's no longer true. Now, if Joe or Jane responds to someone's friends-locked post, their comment can be automatically crossposted to Facebook without my even thinking about it, based on a checkbox they ticked at some point in the past.
Or, more apropos to my life: If I write a locked post, and my friend Stan writes a response that quotes some of my text (because it's the sensible thing to do in that context), Stan can accidentally export my words out to a service that I've deliberately severed all ties with. Even if he'd never consciously, deliberately do so.
That's what bugs so many people about this. That what bugs me about it, too.
My policy has always been that if I post something publicly, with no friends-lock, that means it's intended to be public. Link to it freely, no permission needed. I see no reason to change that policy, and you'll note that I've made this post public.
But to my friends who comment on my journal: Please, don't crosspost my locked stuff to other services. And don't crosspost text that makes it obvious what I must have written, either. I locked it for a reason.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 03:10 am (UTC)More and more, just on GP I am so glad I never got on FB, as it has enabled so much more social fucked-upedness in so many ways. And I find their tactics reprehensible.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 02:29 am (UTC)Have you tested it yet?
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 03:06 am (UTC)If I turn on the "crosspost my comments automatically" feature, I still see crosspost checkboxes when commenting on people's locked entries... and the checkboxes are off by default (on locked entries)?
Or, to put it another way: If a friend of mine is commenting on one of my locked entries, they still have to take explicit action in order to crosspost the text to Facebook?
I admit, that would concern me to a lesser degree. It still wouldn't completely remove my concern, because habits can get ingrained pretty easily. But it'd be less likely to cause accidental data-leakage.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 03:10 am (UTC)I know you know someone who has a Facebook account- have her test it on the locked entry on my LJ? I'll give it a go myself, right now.
UPDATE:
OK, linked my LJ and my FB accounts. I still have the 'repost-to' checkbox for FB NON-grayed now- but if I were to give it permission, it wouldn't repost- I tested this with a content-neutral post on my LJ.
And now we know- the rest, of the story.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 03:27 am (UTC)No, I'm not saying that it will report the post on Facebook. I'm saying that it will repost the comment onto Facebook... but that people sometimes copy-paste text from the post (manually) for entirely sensible quoting/attribution purposes, and that even if they don't do so, their response may make the general gist of the post obvious.
My sweetie is busy at the moment, and not available for testing.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 03:37 am (UTC)So, Facebook Connect doesn't repost the comment to a locked post here over to Facebook, even if I authorize it to do so (even if I authorize it to do so automatically).
Also, one cannot edit one's post or comment from not-Facebook-propagated to Facebook-propagated.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 03:57 am (UTC)Doesn't do so automatically? Or won't allow it at all? I just went and checked in a friend's journal where some people did some tests (locked entry, so no point in linking), and apparently people can crosspost their own comments on locked posts — but it's not the default, regardless of what the commenting user set in their crossposting preferences.
In other words, the post's friends-lock setting overrides the commenter's crosspost setting, to the extent of leaving the box unchecked by default.
But (as of yesterday evening; it may have changed!) if the commenter takes explicit action to check the box, they can still send their comment off to Facebook.
It's not as bad as I thought it was, but it's still pretty annoying.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 05:45 am (UTC)(This may sound irritable; it's not at you, it's at what seems like an unnecessary amount of misinformation and panic surrounding this whole thing.)
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 06:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 08:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 04:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 05:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 07:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 03:13 pm (UTC)In the meantime, Greasemonkey has scripts to turn off the stupid checkboxes, and more scripts might be on the way.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 03:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 05:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-03 08:45 pm (UTC)