Setting aside the dubious value judgments inherent in telling other people what is "normal" and "non-drama laden" behavior, it is pretty clear that you've never had the lovely experience of being stalked. Not everyone has the luxury of being completely open in their dealings with other people, and it should be the right of each user to determine what information is or isn't available about them and the posts they make, and the information they choose not to disclose should not be something that is otherwise readily extrapolated from the information the service requires them to display.
If you have, as you say, completely open and normal relations with everyone, there is no reason you couldn't simply tell people on your f-list that a given post is open to your entire f-list and expect that they will believe you, versus imposing a public setting on everyone that openly announces that a given post is filtered to a subset of one's list. I would say that someone *should* be able to conceal their trust list if they choose to, just like it is the prerogative of current LJ users not to display their "mutual friends" and "friends of" lists in their profile. To be honest, I'm not sure I even particularly care for using the term "trust," but I suppose any setting that's going to clearly delineate between who is an insider and who is an outsider within a friendslist will have the potential for hurting people's feelings. principia_coh Alexis Carpenter -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Joshua Kronengold <[email protected]> > [email protected] writes: > >It is the right of the owner of a given journal to decide who can > >read any given post of theirs. > > Yes. > > >That right extends to not having to field questions from readers > >about why a given post isn't open to their entire friendslist, who on > >the friendslist is or isn't included on a given filter, etc. > > It also includes the right to be able to declare that a given post > -is- going to the entire friends list -- that it is protected, but not > on a close filter. > > Under the status quo (and your preferences), there is no way for a > journal owner to do this; they -cannot- make a post that believably is > open to all friends but can't be filtered. > > I have no problem with people being able to set their journal > default-filtered, aka "you might not know who's reading any given post > of mine." But that shouldn't stop people who engage in normal, > non-drama laden behavior from doing what they normally want to do -- > ie, send "entire trust list" posts that are clearly labeled as > 'protected broadcast', and filtered posts that are clearly labeled as > 'filter'. > > >How is it "dangerous" for the person creating the filter to have more > >information about who is seeing what they're posting than the people > >seeing the posts? > > Of course they should have more information. But in my world, at > least, people tend to post broadcast info under a lock (party invites, > for example) which are -very- reasonable to discuss with other people > who one can expect also received them, and where one wants to be able > to easily signal when this isn't the case. > > The status quo is signfiicant here, and one should be able to import a > paranoid, drama-laden journal with the drama and paranoia intact. But > that doesn't mean that the more normal case (ie, the rest of us) > shouldn't be able to do things in a somewhat saner, more open fashion. > > Take your premises to their logical conclusion, and one should be > able to hide their trust list. But they won't. > > -- > Joshua Kronengold (mneme@(io.com, labcats.org)) |\ _,,,--,,_ ,) > --^-- "Did you know, if you increment enough, you /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;' > /\\ get an extra digit?" "I knew," weeps Six. |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\ > /-\\\ "We knew. But we had forgotten." '---''(_/--' (_/-' > _______________________________________________ > dw-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss _______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
