![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
purplecatI've just re-enabled Facebook connect (I think without getting comments cross-posted although who knows!). This is a test to see what it's doing.
Incidentally I'm not under the illusion that I can force anyone with access to a flocked entry not to discuss its contents with others any more than I can prevent anyone repeating a private conversation I have with them face to face, although I reserve the right to take a dim view of such behaviour (depending, of course, upon what is discussed and with whom). I can see that livejournal's new and exciting ticky boxes increase the likelihood that flocked information could be exposed by mistake but I suspect the possibility for something really incriminating getting out are small. Obviously, if it does turn out to be a problem, I shall be turning off commenting on livejournal and restricting it to Dreamwidth only but I very much doubt it'll come to that. I mean you are all sensible enough not to tick a ticky box simply because it's there, right?
Incidentally I'm not under the illusion that I can force anyone with access to a flocked entry not to discuss its contents with others any more than I can prevent anyone repeating a private conversation I have with them face to face, although I reserve the right to take a dim view of such behaviour (depending, of course, upon what is discussed and with whom). I can see that livejournal's new and exciting ticky boxes increase the likelihood that flocked information could be exposed by mistake but I suspect the possibility for something really incriminating getting out are small. Obviously, if it does turn out to be a problem, I shall be turning off commenting on livejournal and restricting it to Dreamwidth only but I very much doubt it'll come to that. I mean you are all sensible enough not to tick a ticky box simply because it's there, right?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-06 06:56 pm (UTC)ticktick.
This reflects very poorly on me, I have to admit.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-06 06:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-06 07:11 pm (UTC)Not fair. Within a week of properly using Twitter, those tossers follow me. Not the "Groovy Socialist Party", or the "Attractive women out to overthrow the bourgeoisie." Not even bloody Labour, even though I'm following Ed Balls and Ken Livingstone.
No. Conservatives and Republicans.
*ticky-tick*
*except I can't through my email client*
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-06 07:18 pm (UTC)*pets Gabby soothingly*
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-06 07:25 pm (UTC)Presumably, they want moar votes.
Oh, and I've got USPatriotUSA. Which is probably the worst.
*dusts off his anti-Imperialist rants*
May as well have fun with it.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-06 07:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-06 07:09 pm (UTC)Like I say, I think the risks are relatively low, first you have to enable the options in your settings, then you have to tick a ticky box each time you want to crosspost a comment to a flocked post, and then you have to be unlucky enough that the contents of the comment and surrounding context turn out to be incriminating.
That said I'm in the position that I've already linked my facebook and livejournal identities, if I hadn't done that, I might be more concerned by the possibility that my identities could be linked by such cross-posting.
Despite the fuss, I can't see that the ticky box makes deliberate and malicious spreading of private information any more likely.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-06 07:44 pm (UTC)AFAIK the inherent context is only the URL, although of course one might be able to infer things about the original posting from replies to it, and people do occasionally quote things in replies.
But I'm unconvinced by the fuss too.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-06 07:59 pm (UTC)I can see why people who have a strong interest in keeping identities separate might be concerned but otherwise I think there would need to be a very unfortunate confluence of bad luck and proactive stupidity for a comment to reveal anything on Facebook or Twitter that I would want concealed.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-06 08:40 pm (UTC)My Facebook feed would be greatly enhanced by the presence of some incriminating evidence, I can't help feeling :-(
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-07 08:58 am (UTC)Facebook yes, since most people's walls are essentially friendslocked but I'm not so sure about twitter. It came as a big shock when I first started this blog the way authors and editors would pop up in the comments if you mentioned their book, not to mention the more regular interactions where you discuss something you read on another blog while randomly surfing and then the blog owner suddenly appears.
I'm much more aware now that certain people have all sorts of default keyword searches out there that draw their attention to material you would otherwise expect them to miss. Relying on the noise-to-signal ration to conceal stuff is potentially risky.
As an aside (just to be clear), in general I expect authors to take their lumps (though it was a little disconcerting to get sniped at (albeit gently) by Paul Magrs in another context because I had said I didn't much like his books here) but, for instance, I wasn't terribly complimentary about some of the acts in the Eastercon cabaret and I deliberately put that behind a flock because I didn't think it fair to those involved to criticise in public since they were doing something for free and for fun.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-07 09:18 am (UTC)I approach it from the other angle: I spend a lot of time trying to make stuff findable: it's part of my day job, and it's an awful lot harder than you might think.
For all the stuff that filters and custom searches do turn up, there is SO much that sinks without trace! And none of the filters or searches are anything like reliable or complete: if you have information that you've put out there, and you KNOW people SHOULD be able to find it in a particular way it's remarkable how easily it can still fall off the radar! It's like there is a Hungry Information Whale out there nomming up tasty titbits before anyone else can get hold of them...
Obviously the one bit of info that you don't want 'out there' is the thing the Information Whale fails to eat and is then picked up and flung about internationally in a terrifying manner... Sod's law is rampant online!
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-07 09:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-07 08:32 am (UTC)I feel Facebook needs more random comments about gay porn. People's aged relatives would no doubt find it enlightening.
But please don't decamp entirely to DW, the odour of sanctity over there makes me sneeze.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-07 08:48 am (UTC)For some reason my aging relatives are on LiveJournal not Facebook. I'm not sure quite what this says about my family.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-07 08:59 am (UTC)There just isn't enough activity on DW to make it worthwhile for me, as posting there would be like talking to myself, from what I can see. I know LJ management are a bunch of fuckwits, but Facebook is almost certainly worse, and life's too short to get too agitated about stuff like that.
*must not tick the ticky boxes of doom*
*do not press the big red button even though it is big and red and shiny*