And what was she wearing and what did he say

[venta]

For a number of years now - despite all my posts being public - you lot have been assiduously not crossposting them to Twitter, Facebook and similar sites.

I assume that this is because you don't want to and/or you think it's inappropriate, not that you've been confounded until now by the lack of an appropriate tickybox.

Comments

[venta.livejournal.com]

Thanks :)

I do think it's a stupid feature (and frankly, even if it's public stuff which people are happy to have propagated, who wants to read lots of orphan comments cluttering up Twitter even more?)

I was just amused by the sudden onrush of feeling that you had to explicitly remind all your friends not to be twats.

[ylla.livejournal.com]

I do understand people wanting to make the same post in two places.

And occasionally I've said something in a comment and then almost exactly the same thing in a post - if something exciting has just happened, maybe - but I still think a new post is a better way to go, so I don't really understand the stray comment thing.
And I rarely say anything on facebook anyway :)

The tickybox doesn't appear on other people's comments, does it? It doesn't for me - only when I post my own.

[venta.livejournal.com]

Yes, it only allows you to crosspost your own comments.

The trouble (as I understand it, under all the frothing) is that the Facebook/Twitter post will also include a link back to the original LJ post.

If it's a public post, this might propagate to an audience beyond that which was intended.

If it's not a public post, any unintended readers will bounce off the blocked link, but it might alert me (say) to the fact that you'd done a locked post which I wasn't supposed to know about the existence of.

[ylla.livejournal.com]

The 'intended audience' of a public post is a hazy thing - although there is an undeniable difference between 'the set of people who read livejournal' and 'the set of people who use facebook'.

I think if I had something so secret to say that even knowing I'd made a post at all would be dangerous (and I think 'last updated' would still give me away, and the calendar view used to), I might not say it!

I wonder if this is part of the difference between me and the people getting upset. I don't really assume that even locked posts are absolutely private - people forget where they heard something, or get careless, or malicious, or talk too much in the pub, and again that seems more a danger of life than of technology.

[mejoff.livejournal.com]

As I understood it the issue appears to be that it can send up to 500 words of the post itself, even if it is flocked.

[ylla.livejournal.com]

It didn't include any of the post when I tested it - only the contents of the comment and a link back to the comment thread.

It was the pingback bot, I thought, which sent 'snippets' of the post.

That it behaved for me is not proof that it always behaves, of course.

[shrydar.livejournal.com]

Yes, the notification of existence of locked posts is quite an annoying one. I was quite happy when LJ fixed the security hole whereby clicking on the 'next post' link used to not skip past posts the reader didn't have access to.

[venta.livejournal.com]

Plus, of course, my comment on your (hypothetical) locked post might include sections quoted from your original post. Which would then be readable via Twitter, or whatever, by anyone.

Really, this just boils down to "ability to cut-and-paste private stuff and post it elsehwere" which everyone could do anyway, but it might lead to it being done more accidentally.

[ylla.livejournal.com]

But that goes back to sharing your own words if you want and leaving mine alone - I see it as more of a courtesy issue than a technology one.

Comments on locked post can't be crossposted automatically, I think - you have to specifically choose to do it - which should hopefully help.