Feh

[lnr]

Perhaps me and rjk shouldn't read LJ in the same room as each other, guven some people trust one of us and not the other. I try hard not to read things over his shoulder, but just glancing across at his screen at the wrong moment and I can see his friends page is showing a post from a friend of ours which mine isn't, from the big friendly icon of their face at the top of the screen. I wouldn't dream of trying to read it, but I guess it hurts a bit that they don't trust me. Or to be more honest it hurts to have it rubbed in. If I didn't know it was there I wouldn't care.

The whole thing with the padlock on items with some level of security but not saying *what* level really bugs me too. If I hadn't realised that the same article wasn't showing on mine, perhaps if I'd just wandered into the room, it would have been perfectly simple for me to assume it was only "normal" friends-only and not a restricted set of friends and read it without thinking about it much.

Comments

[meirion.livejournal.com]

*hugs*. i know how that feels ...

-m-

[simonb.livejournal.com]

*hugs*

I know what you mean; I really wish that LJ would show more than just the padlock if the post was restricted by group rather than by just friends only (private posts (i.e. ones which only the poster can see) have a separate icon).

However from what I've seen such a feature may not be welcomed by some of the people behind LJ as things like friends groups et al goes against their view of what the LJ community should mean - i.e. all of your friends should be able to see all of your friends posts. To those people the "friend" bit in the "friends list" is taken to be its dictionary meaning. I see it more of a "monitor list", although with my use of the "Default View" group its a "Maybe monitored list" :)

I suppose its something I could code up and hand over to the LJ developers at some point; however it would require me to have things like free time and a willingness to deal with politicals in LJ development :(

[kaet.livejournal.com]

I wish it could say that. I also think that it should be possible to see actively ask to see stubs for things that people have posted privately and explain why. Almost always When I've done something secret, I'd be happy to explain to someone why I didn't want them to see it and if, after that, they still wanted to see it and mailed me, show it to them. I'm very much of the opinion that if you read other people's very secret diaries then you deserve to read what you read and, if the other person is happy with that, then that's fine by me. I don't know if that makes sense?

[meirion.livejournal.com]

there's very little that i post as totally sekr1t; i'm not sure whether i actually have any totally-private entries any more (i know i made a couple of particularly self-indulgent whinings private at one point, but i suspect i might well have just deleted them the morning after). i have some friends filters that i sometimes use, but that's usually so that i don't bore the uninterested, rather than there are people i'm actively trying to hide stuff from. very *very* occasionally i might post stuff to a friends filter for the purpose of avoiding hurting someone, but where i do need to get it all out and get support for the hurt that they've caused me (although sometimes that's about a 3rd person entirely.)

-m-

[ex-lark-asc.livejournal.com]

Phew - for once something that probably *wasn't* my fault. *Hugs* and sympathy - but don't take friends-restricted posts too seriously. There are various reasons I might make something only visible to a particular set of people: because I don't want to upset someone when I'm just having a moan; because it feels a bit too personal to tell the whole world about via LJ rather than in person; because I'm not certain the people I'm excluding like me enough that they'd want to know; or, as meirion said, because it's deeply self-indulgent and dull and I don't think the world at large deserves to have it inflicted on them.

(Er. It wasn't my fault, was it? If it was, ask me about it, I'm more than happy to explain :-/ )

[lnr]

Well, it was a post of yours I saw out of the corner of my eye today and tried to ignore, but don't worry about it. I should just get used to the fact that you're more comfortable talking to Richard about stuff than you are to me, but it's kind of weird realising that sort of thing. I guess it's just a difference in the way we use LJ: I probably don't ever say anything here that I wouldn't say to everyone. And if there is something I'd only say to a couple of people who are close to me then I'd pick somewhere other than LJ to say it IYSWIM.

But it was intending to be a more general wibble than me being really annoyed or anything, and no-one's "fault", just a thought about ways in which LJ security doesn't work well when people share computers so close to each other. It's always weird seeing Weds' articles in passing on Richard's screen and having to remember not to just read them. There may well be stuff the other way round too, but of course you can never tell, because the articles you're reading give no indication of who else can read them.

[ottah.livejournal.com]

i use friend's only posts simply as a way to avoid anonymous postings on certain things. a lot of people who i know and who read live journal will sign the end of a message but not all do and i don't like this but at the same time i don't completely want to stop the anons so this is my compromise