?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Polls apart - shadows of echoes of memories of songs
j4
j4
Polls apart
A more serious poll this time.

Poll #183388 [Restricted]

If you read a post which is locked (as indicated by the padlock symbol), what do you think/feel/assume?

The poster doesn't want people they don't know reading the post or knowing its contents.
1(3.1%)
The poster only wants a select group of people reading the post or knowing its contents.
0(0.0%)
There are specific individuals whom the poster actively doesn't want reading the post or knowing its contents.
0(0.0%)
Everybody on the poster's "friends" list can read the post.
0(0.0%)
I shouldn't mention the contents of the post to people who aren't on the poster's friends list.
0(0.0%)
I shouldn't mention the contents of the post to anybody.
0(0.0%)
I shouldn't even mention the existence of the post to anybody.
0(0.0%)
I should ask the poster before mentioning the post's contents to anybody else.
0(0.0%)
I should ask the poster before mentioning the post's existence to anybody else.
0(0.0%)
It may be okay to pass on some of the facts but it's not okay to show the actual post to anybody else.
0(0.0%)
I can show the post to people I really trust.
0(0.0%)
If I believe that somebody else needs to know the contents of the post, it's okay to tell them.
0(0.0%)
If I believe that somebody else needs to know the contents of the post, it's okay to show them the post.
0(0.0%)
Most "friends-only" posts are made that way for a reason.
0(0.0%)
Most "friends-only" posts are made that way because people make that the default and then don't really think about it for individual posts.
0(0.0%)
It's impossible to generalise about people's reasons for making posts "friends-only".
4(12.5%)
I rarely notice whether a post's locked or not unless it's made explicit in the content.
0(0.0%)
ASSUME NOTHING.
2(6.2%)

Other?

If you read a post which is marked "[Restricted]", but doesn't say to whom it is restricted, what do you think/feel/assume?

The poster doesn't want people they don't know reading the post or knowing its contents.
0(0.0%)
The poster only wants a select group of people reading the post or knowing its contents.
1(3.3%)
There are specific individuals whom the poster actively doesn't want reading the post or knowing its contents.
0(0.0%)
Everybody on the poster's "friends" list can read the post.
0(0.0%)
I shouldn't mention the contents of the post to people who aren't on the poster's friends list.
0(0.0%)
I shouldn't mention the contents of the post to anybody.
0(0.0%)
I shouldn't even mention the existence of the post to anybody.
1(3.3%)
I should ask the poster before mentioning the post's contents to anybody else.
0(0.0%)
I should ask the poster before mentioning the post's existence to anybody else.
0(0.0%)
It may be okay to pass on some of the facts but it's not okay to show the actual post to anybody else.
0(0.0%)
I can show the post to people I really trust.
0(0.0%)
If I believe that somebody else needs to know the contents of the post, it's okay to tell them.
0(0.0%)
If I believe that somebody else needs to know the contents of the post, it's okay to show them the post.
0(0.0%)
Most "friends-only" posts are made that way for a reason.
0(0.0%)
Most "friends-only" posts are made that way because people make that the default and then don't really think about it for individual posts.
0(0.0%)
It's impossible to generalise about people's reasons for making posts "friends-only".
3(10.0%)
I rarely notice whether a post's locked or not unless it's made explicit in the content.
0(0.0%)
ASSUME NOTHING.
3(10.0%)

Other?

Current Mood: contemplative (and ticky-boxy)

Read 9 | Write
Comments
ali_in_london From: ali_in_london Date: September 23rd, 2003 08:18 am (UTC) (Link)
Really depends on the person. For quite a lot of people, the reason a post or journal is friends only is to do with a specific person who has made a nusience of themselves, which I may or may not know about (I'm crap at keeping up with current news) so I tend not to mention a post to someone until I can check whether they are on the appropriate friends list.

I know several people (myself included) who use friends groups as sort of channels, for example ewtikins has a friends group for talking about where she's going busking on the London Underground that week and I have a group for posting up my occasional bits of creative writing and I can't imagine objecting to people being told about that. However, I do know one person who use a very careful and complex web of friends groups depending on how much they trust different people with different things, so I almost never talk about their posts with anyone, just in case.

I tend to assume that if a post is not marked "This is a custom group" in some way or other, then it's just a common-or-garden friends only post.
j4 From: j4 Date: September 23rd, 2003 08:59 am (UTC) (Link)
Really depends on the person.

Oh, definitely. I think I should have added some sort of disclaimer along the lines of "If you don't already know from other sources (real life, email, etc.) that friends-only and restricted groups are used by this person for very specific purposes".

However, I do know one person who use a very careful and complex web of friends groups depending on how much they trust different people with different things

Do they believe that it works? Does it work? Do you think it works?
ali_in_london From: ali_in_london Date: September 23rd, 2003 09:57 am (UTC) (Link)
Do they believe that it works? Does it work? Do you think it works?

I guess it depends what you mean by 'work'. I get the impression that they are reasonably happy with using friends groups, or happy enough to post what they do post within their journal.

I know the biggest 'security breach' they've had was due to someone who was using someone elses login to get to their restricted posts.

It comes down to the old rule. If you don't want someone to see it, don't put it online.
sion_a From: sion_a Date: September 23rd, 2003 08:37 am (UTC) (Link)
I read an implicit s/friends-only/\[restricted\]/ in the last handful.

My basic attitude is much as you said in the other entry about information wanting to be free -- if you put the information up, you should expect it to spread, unless you clearly flag that it should not. I think there are sound reasons some people might want to make (some) posts friends-only or even more restricted (eg the kind of hassle-avoidance reasons I disallow anonymous comments even on public posts) but I don't think "control of information flow" is one of them. That must be left to explicit requests and the discretion of the reader.

Oh, and I use the absence of locked posts from my friends view a cue that I've been logged out....
j4 From: j4 Date: September 23rd, 2003 08:59 am (UTC) (Link)
I read an implicit s/friends-only/\[restricted\]/ in the last handful.

Oh, um, yeah. Sorry. That would have made more sense. :)

Oh, and I use the absence of locked posts from my friends view a cue that I've been logged out....

:)
bjh21 From: bjh21 Date: September 23rd, 2003 08:41 am (UTC) (Link)
I'm curious as to what people think "ASSUME NOTHING" means here? Does that mean that you ask everyone what they expect of you before you read any entry in their LJ?
bjh21 From: bjh21 Date: September 23rd, 2003 08:53 am (UTC) (Link)
I've just realised (as a colleague walked past my desk) that while I might be careful about who I mention restricted LJ posts to, my computers probably aren't. About 150 people have access to my office, a fair number have access to my house, my LJ password is stored on chiark (for updating purposes) and all my LJ traffic travels in cleartext over the Internet. About the only good aspect of this is that almost no-one who's in a position to abuse my LJ account will actually care about what it can see.
bopeepsheep From: bopeepsheep Date: September 23rd, 2003 09:21 am (UTC) (Link)
I kept my LJ anonymous and secret for a long time. When everyone appeared I contemplated making some posts retrospectively restricted, but ultimately didn't, mainly through laziness. All I can really go on are my criteria for restricting posts which are: some TMI stuff is restricted to my "pregnant" and/or "girls" filters. If any SO of one of those readers wished to know, I wouldn't mind the info being passed on but my guess is that it wouldn't come up. Rants will be clearly marked and anyone that should not be told about them will be mentioned in the post. Other stuff is just "I don't want the world at large reading this, but anyone who I consider a friend is welcome to know and/or discuss it with others". This is a change from previously stated policy, now I have a paid account. ;-)

There is one situation in which I would agree that telling someone I have explicitly excluded what I posted is valid and acceptable, and that is if I appear to be ill or endangering smallclanger. His needs take priority over my privacy. From this I can formulate a rule for disseminating information from other people's LJs.
imc From: imc Date: September 23rd, 2003 09:55 am (UTC) (Link)
Oh weird, my browser (Netscape) initialised this poll with my answers to the previous one! :-)
Read 9 | Write