Again, what happened to just defriending/unsubscribing? If someone consistently posts in a manner that makes you uncomfortable, stop reading their blog.
- HT On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Azalais Aranxta <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Andrea Nall wrote: > >> So you are saying Dreamwidth should special-case Loudtwitter? >> How about every single meme, quiz, test, or any spam entry, or >> anything that some magical algorithm determines is "meaningless >> content"? >> >> There has to be a line somewhere, but Dreamwidth doing things to your >> entries seems a bit "evil" to me. > > I've never understood why people think this about lj-cuts. > Blocking, sure, but lj-cuts? > > Frankly I think lj-cuts should be forced for any post with images > or larger than 3 paragraphs. And if I could put that in blinky > text with a marquee, I would. (Because this is important <-- > just kidding!) > > Particularly given that DW allows people to post much longer > entries which will be that much more annoying if not lj-cut and > of an annoying nature. > > I started to feel this way because of Very Political People who > think that not lj-cutting images of torture victims, images of > abused animals or 20 paragraph screeds about the latest Cause > "because this is important, and I'm going to Make You Read/Look > At it (and I don't care if you have your three year old in your > lap, are at work, or are visiting your elderly parents)" will > force me to actually look at/read all of it instead of scrolling > like mad, AdBlocking the pictures etc. The dumbest phrase ever > used on LJ has got to be "Not cutting because This Is Important" > and I think the reaction of nearly everyone who sees it has to be > "well fuck, the likelihood that I will actually pay attention to > THAT's just gone down by about 300%." > > (In fact, if you are on my flist and you do this a lot with > disgusting images, I adblock your whole photobucket.) > > Anyhow, LoudTwitter is outside content, unlike memes which people > actually do post in their journals; blocking it entirely would be > evil, but lj-cutting it, not at all, and allowing readers to opt > out of seeing it doesn't seem to me to be any worse than allowing > readers to opt out of seeing any other type of outside content > they don't want served to them. Also, most of the vocal > defenders of LoudTwitter I'm seeing here that are on my flist are > actually LoudTwitter users. *g* > > I don't mind LoudTwitter but I can sure understand why other > people do, and if you are serving more than a few tweets, it > ought to be cut. (I don't use LoudTwitter, but if I did, I'm > sure people would find it obnoxious. Nobody wants to know what I > have to say to Pete and Ashlee Wentz--who don't read it > either--or the SPN and MadMen RPers on Twitter unless they > actually care about those folks.) > > Azalais :) > > **************************************************************** > Azalais Aranxta (~malfoy) > ataniell93 on LiveJournal and Vox > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/malfoymadness > > "I know the true world, and you know I do. But we needn't let it > think we all bow down." --Christopher Fry > _______________________________________________ > 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
