Poll on the FB/Twitter Linkage

[wlotus]

Someone has created a poll asking people's input on the FB/Twitter link feature.

http://community.livejournal.com/thequestionclub/86168785.html

From what I understand, the LJ staff is aware of and watching this poll, so feel free to add your input to it.

---

ETA: Yesterday evening LJ staff member bluemeringue posted this comment in response to the overwhelming number of requests to get rid of (or at least allow blog owners to opt their blogs out of) the Facebook/Twitter cross-posting:

We understand and appreciate your wish for privacy. Most of us would not want our LiveJournal usernames, FO comments, etc., published on Facebook or Twitter either (to the extent we even use them). We hear you. We are doing our very best to respond.

Which makes me wonder, then, why it was done in the first place. I suspect LJ staff had nothing to do with this change. It probably came from the owners up above.

Comments

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

On the one hand, it is no different than someone cutting and pasting the contents of someone else's protected post onto a public forum, thus breaking that person's trust. On the other hand, it makes it that much easier for the person to do it. And there is also the fact that some people deliberately keep their LJ anonymous and entirely separate from their Facebook/Twitter identities. If someone knows them in both places, shares mutual acquaintances, and cross-posts, all hell could break loose in that person's professional or personal lives.

Then there's just embarrassment. If you posted in a protected post that you are recovering from (just as an example) a herpes outbreak, and someone who knew you in both places had their, "I am SO sorry about your recent herpes outbreak!" comment cross-posted to their Facebook page, I don't think you'd be all that happy that mutual acquaintances might be able to trace that comment back to your LJ and figure out who you are.

[sandokai.livejournal.com]

Yeah....

I would hope after the age of like 15.... people just wouldn't do something that stupid!

The concept is silly though. Why repost the comments one makes to someone in a context-less new context?

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

Some people do things like that because they are mean, or they just had a falling out with the poster, or they simply are not thinking of the effects it can have on the person. Where cutting and pasting someone's private information to a public forum is a deliberate act, cross-posting of comments makes it easy for genuine mistakes to happen.

Then, too, some people post publicly on their LJs, but they do so anonymously. A commenter can set their LJ account to automatically cross-post their comments; comments to public posts will be automatically cross-posted without the commenter needing to select checkboxes. A malicious mutual acquaintance can see the comment to a public post, follow the link to the public (but otherwise anonymous) LJ where the comment was made, and then figure out by reading through the public posts who that person is, thus blowing their cover.

One person commented against this new feature and used a domestic violence support community on LJ as an example. They decided to make the group posts public, so that other people who need support (but who may be too shy to join) can benefit from the stories and advice from the people in that community. Someone with their LJ account set to automatically cross-post their comments to their FB or Twitter feed can inadvertently lead an abuser right back to his victim, if they don't remember to un-select the check boxes before posting the comment.

There is just too much margin for error, and it can all be fixed by allowing the blog owner or community maintainer to choose to opt their blog/community out of the feature, rather than leaving that choice up to the individuals doing the commenting.

[rockbirthedme.livejournal.com]

I don't want the feature to be opt-out. I want the feature to be opt-in, so that it only works if you actively choose it. Making it opt-out still leaves people open to trouble if they don't realize the feature exists, don't realize they can opt out, or don't realize the need to opt out until they get burned. Anything that could potentially negatively affect the privacy of a journal should be opt-in.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

Good point. That is what I meant, but I used "opt-out" to describe it.