![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
teaberryblueSo, LiveJournal just created a feature that isn't particularly well-thought-out.
Is anyone surprised? I am not. We're kinda used to them not really thinking about how many users don't use their journals as traditional blogs. Some people do, and those people, I am sure, would love to have all the features a traditional blog has. Other people don't, and in those cases, these new features are potentially problematic in the way they're structured now.
Telling LJ you don't like them is awesome. That is a good way to respond to something you don't like.
HOWEVER, I am getting really sick of commentary from people on my friendslists and elsewhere that suddenly assumes people who have been given access to their locked posts for years are now going to misuse that trust, when they didn't misuse it before.
Yeah, there are plenty of cases of people leaking information from LJ to other places. It's been happening for years and years and people who do that are usually douchebags-- although not always; I can think of a few cases where it was really important that information from a locked post was shared. But the majority of times, this is an asshole move.
But the vast majority of us are not assholes. We respect the trust of people who allow us to see their locked posts. We have never shared information that was not intended to be shared, or have only shared it in cases where we felt an obligation to do so. We respect the line between people's different internet personae and we do not cross it.
I do not treat other people like potential criminals. If someone hurts me or does something to wrong me, I treat them as a person who has wronged me, until such a time that we can work out our differences, if I believe that's possible. I believe that it is inherently unkind to treat a person who has done nothing wrong as if I expect them to. It's something you see in a lot of workplaces, an uncomfortable relationship between management and their employees, where employees are treated as potential thieves. Sometimes, entire shifts of employees are fired, even ones who have proven their trustworthiness over months and years, because of inventory loss. I believe that is a wrong way to treat human beings.
And so, I also believe it is a wrong way to treat human beings to level threats at people or to take action that shows an inherent mistrust of people with whom you have trusted information about yourself until now. If you do not trust people to respect your privacy and the privacy of your other friends, don't let them see information that you do not trust them with. If your friends claim to mistrust other people in whom you have placed your trust, ask whether that is reasonable. Ask if your response would be the same in a face to face situation, if one friend told you that they do not trust someone whom you have known and trusted for a long time. Me, I would be insulted if someone came to me and said they expected me to change the way I run my journal because they did not trust and respect my judgment, or felt that they were entitled to decide who should have access to my posts of certain types. I have chosen whom to share what information with. I should not have to amend my choices to suit someone else's inherent mistrust.
I realize that plenty of people have felt betrayed by other people regarding lack of prudence as far as sharing internet information. But that lack of prudence, or deliberate disregard, has been going on since I first came online in 1995. No new feature is going to suddenly turn people who weren't assholes before into assholes. Do not trust people who have shown disregard for you in the past-- but do not treat people who have worked hard to gain your trust and respect as if they are potential threats. They do not deserve it, and that display of mistrust is, to me, more hurtful than most of the mistakes people could make.
Is anyone surprised? I am not. We're kinda used to them not really thinking about how many users don't use their journals as traditional blogs. Some people do, and those people, I am sure, would love to have all the features a traditional blog has. Other people don't, and in those cases, these new features are potentially problematic in the way they're structured now.
Telling LJ you don't like them is awesome. That is a good way to respond to something you don't like.
HOWEVER, I am getting really sick of commentary from people on my friendslists and elsewhere that suddenly assumes people who have been given access to their locked posts for years are now going to misuse that trust, when they didn't misuse it before.
Yeah, there are plenty of cases of people leaking information from LJ to other places. It's been happening for years and years and people who do that are usually douchebags-- although not always; I can think of a few cases where it was really important that information from a locked post was shared. But the majority of times, this is an asshole move.
But the vast majority of us are not assholes. We respect the trust of people who allow us to see their locked posts. We have never shared information that was not intended to be shared, or have only shared it in cases where we felt an obligation to do so. We respect the line between people's different internet personae and we do not cross it.
I do not treat other people like potential criminals. If someone hurts me or does something to wrong me, I treat them as a person who has wronged me, until such a time that we can work out our differences, if I believe that's possible. I believe that it is inherently unkind to treat a person who has done nothing wrong as if I expect them to. It's something you see in a lot of workplaces, an uncomfortable relationship between management and their employees, where employees are treated as potential thieves. Sometimes, entire shifts of employees are fired, even ones who have proven their trustworthiness over months and years, because of inventory loss. I believe that is a wrong way to treat human beings.
And so, I also believe it is a wrong way to treat human beings to level threats at people or to take action that shows an inherent mistrust of people with whom you have trusted information about yourself until now. If you do not trust people to respect your privacy and the privacy of your other friends, don't let them see information that you do not trust them with. If your friends claim to mistrust other people in whom you have placed your trust, ask whether that is reasonable. Ask if your response would be the same in a face to face situation, if one friend told you that they do not trust someone whom you have known and trusted for a long time. Me, I would be insulted if someone came to me and said they expected me to change the way I run my journal because they did not trust and respect my judgment, or felt that they were entitled to decide who should have access to my posts of certain types. I have chosen whom to share what information with. I should not have to amend my choices to suit someone else's inherent mistrust.
I realize that plenty of people have felt betrayed by other people regarding lack of prudence as far as sharing internet information. But that lack of prudence, or deliberate disregard, has been going on since I first came online in 1995. No new feature is going to suddenly turn people who weren't assholes before into assholes. Do not trust people who have shown disregard for you in the past-- but do not treat people who have worked hard to gain your trust and respect as if they are potential threats. They do not deserve it, and that display of mistrust is, to me, more hurtful than most of the mistakes people could make.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-04 09:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-04 02:28 pm (UTC)I think the thing with not noticing if posts are locked is that I usually don't notice...until I want to mention something about them elsewhere. I always check to see if posts are locked before I quote them or link to them, and I think most other people do, too.
The funny thing about this is, to me, there are a lot of people who are up in arms about the very concept of linking to locked posts at all, claiming it violates their privacy to even let other people know that a locked post was made. And I actually get why that upsets people, but I had never heard anyone state that objection publicly until this came up. Usually when people link to locked posts, which does happen from time to time, because someone genuinely didn't notice it was locked, all the objections come from people who can't see it complaining that it is annoying to be linked to a locked post. I don't recall any time I've seen the person being linked to object.
I think it may be the issue of people's inherent distrust in Facebook, which I totally understand (I don't particularly trust it, either, but I use it to keep in touch with several people who can't necessarily give out a personal email address), and the fact that really before this, people mainly posted links to locked posts on LJ, so not somewhere where non-LJ-people would see. I'm not accusing anyone who is upset about it now of being oversensitive or anything like that (although I have seen a couple total hypocrites who have publicly posted screencaps of other people's locked posts and told those people to lighten up who are now freaking out about this because THEIR privacy is threatened), my interest in this reaction is more of a "hmm, I never thought of that as something that people would consider bad before, because I've never seen anyone bring it up prior to this."