The DW Debate

[digitaldiscipline]

Quoting and modifying something a friend wrote, who said this a bit more tactfully than I was going to:

I see a lot of people are moving to Dreamwidth.

Also, if you only allow comments on DW or whatever, don't expect me to read your comments there, nor to comment on your posts. The whole process is not as seamless as you may think. I'm not trying to be a bitch, but I may just remove you because all we really have anymore is a one-sided conversation. You may or may not be coming to LJ to read ME, and I can't comment on you, so you've reduced yourself to noise on my LJ at worst, or have turned yourself into an approximation of an RSS feed of a site I kind of like at best (note: I don't subscribe to RSS feeds, so this is damning with faint praise indeed)

Since you're on my f-list, I like you and I don't want to lose you, but then again, it's not like you're going to see this anyway. (Unless you are. But for how long?)

Comments

[ldybastet.livejournal.com]

I do that crossposting thing atm, but I am actively reading my LJ flist as well. I am fully aware that none of the comms I follow and enjoy here are going to move, as well as a lot of cool people, so I keep a presence on both sites. However, when LJ finally stops the crossposting of comments on friendslocked posts (in two weeks or whatever), then I'll open up to comments again. Right now I'm just more than a little fed up with the LJ PTB. *sigh*

[blackavar.livejournal.com]

It's a little more fluid than that, though. I personally leave comments on both places, and read both places as well. As soon as DW gets the "read LJ as a logged-in user" code working, I'll likely read there and move more to using the OpenID account to comment here, though.
I make no secret that I think it's better there from a community and support and feature standpoint, but I also know that some people choose to be here.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

I'm more tired of the migratory habits of my online friends and acquaintences trending towards attrition rather than coagulation.

[blackavar.livejournal.com]

Agreed, that's sad to see. However, LJ has gotten mighty quiet as of late, at least on my friends page.
I've also found that at least part of why I wasn't posting at LJ seems to have been discomfort about LJ and how things were going, though. I've posted more at DW since I've been there than in the past 3 years at LJ.

[trystbat.livejournal.com]

Ditto on everything you said. Also, hello, it's cross-posting. Isn't that what ppl were complaining about w/LJ? If security is a concern, cross-posting your content is a pretty nice way of letting in security leaks, duh.

[blackavar.livejournal.com]

The primary difference, though: Facebook requires "real names", and has even canceled accounts when they are alerted that someone is not using their real name. I don't use my real name there, and accept the risk that my account and friends list may disappear at any point. Anything I post on Facebook belongs to them, after all.

[trystbat.livejournal.com]

1) Plenty of people use fake names on Facebook w/no problems.

2) Federal law dictates that Internet providers (meaning Facebook, LiveJournal, Dreamwidth, Twitter, Google, Yahoo!, etc.) can't "own" any content posted on their service. If they did, they would be held liable of what people posted, including copyright violations, threats, hate speech, defamation, etc. It's a common misconception, but the fact is you are held liable for what you post. You own it wherever you write it.

[the_axel]

1) It certainly seems that FB has lightened up on that requirement recently but I know a bunch of people who have had their accounts shut down because their user name was clearly not a persons name.

And if they did it yesterday, then there's nothing to say they won't do it tomorrow (so too could anyone else, but FB has demonstrated a willingness to do so it is more probable for them to do so than for an organization that has never done so).

[blackavar.livejournal.com]

Facebook real name issues seem to be somewhat up in the air currently, but accounts have been deleted in the past for not having real names attached.

Liability != ownership. Yes, perhaps "belongs to them" could be misleading. How about "is licensed by them for publication and storage under very liberal terms"?

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License").

Facebook's current ToS no longer does so, but it has asserted in the past that the act of posting on Facebook is agreeing to giving Facebook an irrevocable license to use/republish/share/archive your content, even if you cancel the service. Not ideal, and the only reason that the current ToS does not is the explosion when people figured that out and publicized it.

[trystbat.livejournal.com]

And this is hardly different from most any other public website. This is how the Internet industry works; it's a business, btw. If you're so concerned, perhaps you shouldn't be posting things online. Ditto about names -- if you don't want your name out there, don't be on the Web. Pretty easy solution.

[blackavar.livejournal.com]

Ew. That particular argument reads far too close to a number of victim-blaming arguments I've heard over the years. To be clear - I'm not claiming to be the victim here. I'm perfectly aware of the risks and of how public net posts can be used - I was on Cypherpunks since shortly after Detweiler left officially, in '93 or so. I've followed Risks for just about that long. I've advocated informing users about the risks they're taking, as well. Getting outed about various things via the Facebook/Twitter tie-in would be annoying to me, not catastrophic.

I still have plenty of information available about me on the net, and have made an informed choice to do so. I'd also like to see a good, well-designed infrastructure of end-to-end encryption and negotiated access, be it done automatically using agents or manually.

However:
1. It's not a particularly good thing that data is that accessible and interconnected while so many people are unaware of the risks they're taking and have limited tools to control those risks.
2. Making semi-private data more accessible and more connected is not going in a positive direction. It's stalker-enabling.
3. Organizations that work to tie data like this together should be challenged (and monkeywrenched when possible)

[trystbat.livejournal.com]

I'm not really even talking about the specific LJ/FB/Twitter thing -- I'm simply annoyed at ppl whining about Internet privacy as if the concept really exists.

You (general "you") put yourself on the Internet, *you* are the one who ultimately bears the responsibility for what happens to your information, your data, your life. Companies can & do state where their liabilities start & end, which is usually a very small & discreet space.

I've been online for fun since the early '90s & for a living since '95. Just call me jaded & tired of the whole so-called debate. If you "follow risks" then you should know all this & not be surprised either.

[inyou.livejournal.com]

If it's any consolation, I do read your posts, even if I don't always comment ^_^ I do come to LJ to read your journal, and have you under my alt.gothic-specific list, but also my list of people to read that are not a.g