(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Livejournal Pingbacks: If you link to a livejournal post, it mails a link to your post, with excerpts, to the person you're linking to.

The "excerpts” have been up to five paragraphs.

It mails the excerpt and the link even if your post is private, or locked.

It mails the excerpt and the link even if the person you’re linking to isn’t allowed to see that information.

Thsi is slightly problematic, for many reasons.

Comments

[missysedai.livejournal.com]

Oh, it just gets better and better, doesn't it?

[dominitus.livejournal.com]

That's quite a large oversight. The FAQ does state they're only supposed to function for public entries, not private/locked.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

They *do* only function for public entries. You will only SEND a pingback if you link to a public entry!

Your entry? Not checked.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

[drcuriosity]

I concur with Space Ghost's assessment.

[chaosrah.livejournal.com]

This

[matgb]

I have yet to see any evidence, including in the linked post, that it's happened on posts that were posted locked, were always locked, and have never been unlocked.

Every report I've seen involves editing posts to make them public and or lock them down again.

Regardless, that's the way it's supposed to work, and is thus a bug.

A fucking stupid one, that shows they did little to no user testing on the new stuff, again, but it's not what's supposed to happen. Regardless, I'm not sure it is actually happening.

John, you got a reliable source that isn't noted for histrionic overreaction a little unreliable? You know my opinion of LJ management already, but this time I'm seeing a fuckup and deliberate exaggeration and/or obtuse misunderstanding.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

How do I turn this damn feature off, again?

[missysedai.livejournal.com]

Go here. (http://www.livejournal.com/manage/settings/?cat=privacy)

Set it to Disable.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[graethorne.livejournal.com]

My thanks as well!

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link... I thought I'd disabled it already, but I guess I forgot to.

-- Steve has staked the hellspawn down now, though.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Apparently it's been a while since I looked at my privacy settings - there are several new options, and most of them seem to have defaulted to "privacy who cares?" settings. Thanks a bunch LJ!

[maelorin]

perhaps they're channelling facepalm?

this is a trend across 'social media' :\

U rock!

[iblis-kukl.livejournal.com]

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

OFFS.

[lirion.livejournal.com]

Somehow I'd skipped over that issue in light of the "people can crosspost the comments they make, even on your locked posts and these will provide a link back to the post" issue. Ok, the post can't be read unless you are on the locked list, but if you've filtered the post and other people can see you made it and get an idea from comments as to what it is about, that's bad enough.
Here, for reference (http://news.livejournal.com/129190.html?thread=86289830#t86289830)

And I thought facebook had privacy fail.

[inteluser.livejournal.com]

Once you've allowed someone access to a locked post, you are going to have to trust them with the content of your post. It's the choice of the user commenting as to whether or not to crosspost the comment, just as whether to copy your locked post and paste it all over the internet.

It's the fact that crossposting is the choice of the user that's commenting that makes this not really a breach of privacy at all. They can betray your trust; using crossposting is only one way to do it.

[fearmeforiampink]

True enough. However I still feel that the person who's journal it is should get the right of "Nuh-uh" the options popping up.

[lirion.livejournal.com]

Trusting people not to be malicious about it is different to trusting them not to be stupid.

And human error exists, there is a chance of people accidentally hitting the crosspost box, or just not thinking through consequences.

If it posted the comment in an "I just said this" with no reference to the journal name, let alone a link to the post, I'd be happier (for locked posts). Of course this woudl remove all context and make it effectively useless, but hey, that's not my problem.

[strawberryfrog.livejournal.com]

I'd go further and say that the presence of the crosspost box will make people assume that it's OK to do that. And often it's not.

[lirion.livejournal.com]

This is very true.

I'm also reminded of the people I know who have their twitter posts fed through automatically as their facebook updates. And then, just to make sure we are all aware, they repost their tweets using loud twitter, as journal a journal entry each day. And so, I can see people all too easily saying "ooo, look at this COOL new use of technology, because you all really just need to hear everything I have to say about everything 3 times!" *ahem* It might be a pet peeve. Anyway, therefore, the likeihood of people not thinking this through seems high to me.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The problems are that

#1) the current Facebook/Twitter system encourages ignorance *and accident*, and is enabled by default.

#2) the current Pingback system EXPOSES YOUR PRIVATE POSTS TO PEOPLE TO WHOM YOU DID NOT ALLOW ACCESS.

Seriously, read the article. Twitter/Failbook requires that the user deliberately crosspost and encourages accidents. Failing to disable "pingbacks" mails the content of your post to anyone you link, regardless of their presence or nonpresence on your friendslist or the privacy settings of your post.

[almostwitty]

the current Facebook/Twitter system encourages ignorance *and accident*, and is enabled by default.

Surely it's only enabled if you have happened to tell LJ what your Facebook or Twitter accounts are? If you don't tell them where yours is, no problem.

Of course, that still doesn't preclude someone else on your f-list re-posting their comment to their Facebook/Twitter, but that's a different set of problems. A simple flag of "(X) wants to repost their comment on your post to their Facebook. Are you ok with that?" option ought to suffice.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Surely it's only enabled if you have happened to tell LJ what your Facebook or Twitter accounts are? If you don't tell them where yours is, no problem.

It's not enabled *for you*.

This is not the same, at all, as "not enabled", and does not affect the actual problem.

[mantic-angel.livejournal.com]

If we want to have a rational discussion of why this is bad, that's fine, but can we PLEASE stop the horrifically misleading, fear-inciting phrase "enabled by default?" I can't count how many times I've had to explain to people that no, you have to go through three setup pages to enable it.

Yes, you do not have veto power over my decisions. You also do not have veto power over my "email me replies to my comments", nor my email forward function, nor my copy-paste function. If you want to comment on your lack of veto power, go for it, but it's NOT "enabled by default" because every time someone reposts something it means they deliberately went and ENABLED it.

[harald387.livejournal.com]

I've said this before, and I will say it again: If something is so private that you can't stand to share it with the world, then posting it on the internet, regardless of filters, is the wrong course of action.