Strange, but apparently true (edited)
Mar. 4th, 2005 02:51 pmFriendditto.
I've not heard of them before today.
Since I've no locked posts, I am not worried about them for me (though I can see where I might want to lock some posts, or filter them) I do have a couple of private posts, which ought not be affected, since I am not using this service.
But I hear things about it which I find offensive. Not crucial (since if I want to post something you've locked I can always paste it, this just makes it, so I hear, easier), but offensive.
I don't think it can go to the locked posts of friends, by way of the FOF reading list.
If it can, then I am past offended, because that, it seems, is an invasion of privacy.
So, as I 1: have no locked posts, and 2: have no way to know if any of you have chosen to use this, I won't ask you to take yourselves off my friends list. On the other hand, if I do start locking posts, and then see them talked about all over town. I'll be annoyed.
***
I went and looked at them. The FAQ says they can't keep Friends Only posts. Since this seems to be the cause of so much of the angst, I wonder what the facts are. I see no reason, on the face of things, to doubt them. Then again, I am loathe to share my password with anyone.
I've not heard of them before today.
Since I've no locked posts, I am not worried about them for me (though I can see where I might want to lock some posts, or filter them) I do have a couple of private posts, which ought not be affected, since I am not using this service.
But I hear things about it which I find offensive. Not crucial (since if I want to post something you've locked I can always paste it, this just makes it, so I hear, easier), but offensive.
I don't think it can go to the locked posts of friends, by way of the FOF reading list.
If it can, then I am past offended, because that, it seems, is an invasion of privacy.
So, as I 1: have no locked posts, and 2: have no way to know if any of you have chosen to use this, I won't ask you to take yourselves off my friends list. On the other hand, if I do start locking posts, and then see them talked about all over town. I'll be annoyed.
***
I went and looked at them. The FAQ says they can't keep Friends Only posts. Since this seems to be the cause of so much of the angst, I wonder what the facts are. I see no reason, on the face of things, to doubt them. Then again, I am loathe to share my password with anyone.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-04 11:03 pm (UTC)But, because one has to be logged in to use it, it allows one to save all entries, of all the people one lists as friends.
Which implies I might log in, call up your LJ, and then download it to my drive.
The quibble seems to be that the folks who run this are, in some way, affiliated with LJ Drama, and might take advantage of the access you, granting this program, access, could provide to a third party.
I have looked at the site, and in part it's a remote host for saving posts. I'm not sure why one would do that (it links to the url) but there you go.
It is probably a tempest in a teapot, but it seems (call me old-fashioned) unseemly. Like reading someone else's mail.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-03-05 05:35 pm (UTC)But, because one has to be logged in to use it, it allows one to save all entries, of all the people one lists as friends.
Basically, you can archive any LJ posts you normally have access to on that site, including other people's friends-only posts if you give it your username and password. Even if the original post is deleted, it stays on the frienditto site (so when someone locks down or deletes a post after having all of LJDrama descend upon them, it's still available for snarking and ridicule on frienditto).
Honestly, can you think of a single reason to repost someone else's friends-locked entry on a public site where the entire world can read it other than to stir up more drama? (Because lord knows there's not enough drama on LJ already.)
no subject
Date: 2005-03-05 09:22 pm (UTC)If I use it to save something, anyone who is a friendditto user can look at it?
Yikes.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-03-05 10:04 pm (UTC)