> For example, I'm in a bunch of original work writing communities on LJ and > JF. Most of them the point isn't to post a whole chapter in one go. If I > want to post something to one of groups, my choices seem to be either "hey, > here is a friends-locked community post of excerpt of something I'm writing" > and leave it at that, or to post the whole chapter publicly (which I don't > like to do between publishing issues, people I know in real life finding out > the sort of things I write, and bugging my friends list with writing posts > that aren't on the writing filter) and saying "here's an excerpt, go over to > linky <i>here</i> to read more if you want." For another, I have an empty > secondary LJ account that I use to post to a venting community for > librarians. No way I want something like "library patrons suck" on the > public profile of my real account, but I really like a lot of the people in > that group and wouldn't mind letting them read my journal. In both cases, it > seems useful to me to have a security setting where one could set an entry > or a journal to "members of ___ community". > > I'm not technical at all, but I could see this having the possibility to be > a really complicated piece of coding. I'm not sure how it would actually > work, except maybe as a kind of whitelist that checks logged in user names > against membership in okayed communities. Does anyone else think this sounds > like an idea worth exploring? >
It does sound interesting, but isn't there kind of a security problem if these comms have open membership? In other words, maybe User A is okay with letting members of Comm B see their filtered entries, but then all of a sudden, their enemy or ex joins Comm B, and in a flash they are able to see all of these entries filtered to Comm B. The problem of not wanting to post publicly, wanting to show a specific group of people these locked posts, and not wanting to bother the other friends, could be solved by creating a separate journal and trusting/friending the entire membership of the comm, or whichever members the person wishes to see it, I think. For the other scenario, can't this be solved by trusting all of the members of the comm, because you don't need to join the comm in order to trust them all? I guess the problem is that IIRC there is a limit on the number of people a user can friend/trust. Charmian _______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
