How about letting people edit their own comments to other peoples' posts?
Actually, I don't remember where I read this, but there was a pretty clear statement that they weren't ever going to do that, because that meant attacks could be modified. There is a legal difference between a post that does the same thing and is edited and a comment, although I'm paraphrasing from a faint memory so I may be missremembering. But I recall that it was pretty categorically stated that they'd never offer that, no matter how much people asked.
Unfortunately, every time I've seen it brought up, the response tends to be "technical difficulties" or its something that's on the list of things they're considering.
I'd rather an answer that I wasn't particularly happy with rather than no answer at all.
Yeah, that was going through my mind as I wrote that, and I completely agree. I may not have to like their reasoning, but I can see it as a reason and will therefore stop bugging people about it. Not so good is better than being fobbed off any day.
I'm still waiting for a clarification of policies. It's only 3:30 pacific, though.
I have questions about that explanation, though. I mean, if the person whose LJ it was had emailed comments turned on, they'd have a copy of the original email in their inbox, right? All they'd have to do would be save it. PLUS, it's not like NOW someone couldn't post an attacking comment and then delete it immediately, thus emailing the attack to the attackee but leaving no other proof that the comment existed. In fact, they could then post a different, more innocent comment immediately. I don't know. Maybe there's a real explanation there, but I'm missing it.
I've also seen it suggested that there be a time limit for editing comments. For example, for the 10 minutes following a comment being posted, the commenter could edit said comment -- after that, they'd no longer be able to. That would allow for the fixing of typos etc in the minutes after hitting "post comment," at least.
I'm just sick of accusations that people are still whining about the Strikeout, when really it's a whole host of issues that are the problem. The Strikeout just highlighted those isssues.
It appears that a huge number of folks in LJ don't understand the issues at all. Their comments generally suggest they have deliriously shallow thinking processes. These are the kinds of folks who would cower in the darkness or their rooms when outside they know someone is being mugged or raped. I do not respect either them or their opinions. Kudos to you for your own statements. I agree.
I've had this LJ account since 2001. I've been a paid member for a good chunk of that time. Last time there was a permanent account sale, I almost bought one. I'd made up my mind that I was going to get one the next time they came around. Then there was 6A's monumental strikethrough fiasco. I've been unhappy with the slowness of the site and the many errors I've gotten over the past six months (or more!), and I'm extremely unhappy with the way things have been going and they way they seem to be heading with 6A. I really regret, now, re-upping my paid account in early May.
If you buy during the first 36 hours of the sale, we'll donate $25 of your purchase price among four organizations: RAINN, Witness, the EFF and Creative Commons. And if you want your donation to go to just one of the organizations you can instruct us to do that too.
So each group gets 1/4 of $25 for each permanent account? Nice gesture, anyway.
I'm not getting a permanent account. Instead, I think I'll give $150 to EFF(... )
Compensation for denial of service during a distributed denial of service attack seems to me to be owed to you by the jackasses who mounted the attack, not the provider who suffered from the attack.
Dunno exactly what they did to cope with the attack, but my guess from the described behavior is that they throttled incoming traffic from IP ranges including the attack sources. The alternative to them reducing just your service was allowing the DDOS attackers to reduce everyone's service. It wasn't Six Apart's fault in the least, and they did well to keep the service levels normal for most of their customers. (I didn't notice anything, for instance.)
I would agree that compensation in the form of free paid service time is due to the journals that were yanked unjustly.
Dunno exactly what they did to cope with the attack, but my guess from the described behavior is that they throttled incoming traffic from IP ranges including the attack sources.
I'm definitely under the impression that that was what they were doing, yes.
In the past, tho, LJ used to offer compensation for disrupted service even though the situation was not their fault. I think the last time was as a result of a DDOS attack.
The thing is, I've been in situations where I've had disrupted service as a result of something that technically wasn't the service provider's fault, like cable service, and have gotten a pro-rated bill as a result.
LJ is, like it or not, a service provider. While they don't have to compensate for disrupted service, but it's a good customer service move especially since they tracked which clusters were having problems.
Clarifying the differences in policies between public and private content...
See, I figured that meant behind the scenes -- for example, what non-public posts would be available to LJ/6A staff if an outside group complained about an LJ users journal content.
See, that's the thing: It's maddeningly unclear. I wasn't the only one who was thrown by that wording in the original post because I know I saw other people point out "private" and "friends lock."
The way you put it would make sense, but until we actually see the ToS that spells it out, we just have these vague statements.
Again, I don't have a problem with 6A/LJ setting policy. My problem is they expect people to turn over a lot of money to them before they set that policy.
While I understand that the perm sale was scheduled and that it was going to happen no matter what, they could have pushed it off a month or two to deal with this other stuff. It wasn't until there were pages and pages of people pointing out on no less than three communities that they didn't want to pay unless they knew what they were paying for that we got some promise that they'd unveil the ToS today.
Yeah, it's pretty much impossible to know what the hell they're talking about. But this:
and making commitments about how you can expect us to protect your private content and resist intrusions into your privacy.
kind of sounds like there's stuff going on that hasn't been admitted to. Otherwise why would there need to be talk about "how private content can be protected?" I mean, that's what f-lock and private posts are for, isn't it?
I wouldn't be HAPPY if they decided that all posts with X content needed to be f-locked, but it would be a hell of a lot better than having my LJ suspended or deleted because of said content. Especially since that policy sure didn't exist when I forked over the money for a permanent account.
Now I'm waiting to see if we actually get that clarification by this evening.
While there is still some work to do on edge cases and implementation approaches to ensure consistent application of policies, I do believe we can provide you a good deal of clarity on the policies we intend to implement before the end of the day in California today (Wed.).
Something tells me that his definition of "a good deal of clarity" and mine will not be mixy things.
Comments 45
Actually, I don't remember where I read this, but there was a pretty clear statement that they weren't ever going to do that, because that meant attacks could be modified. There is a legal difference between a post that does the same thing and is edited and a comment, although I'm paraphrasing from a faint memory so I may be missremembering. But I recall that it was pretty categorically stated that they'd never offer that, no matter how much people asked.
Reply
Unfortunately, every time I've seen it brought up, the response tends to be "technical difficulties" or its something that's on the list of things they're considering.
I'd rather an answer that I wasn't particularly happy with rather than no answer at all.
Reply
I'm still waiting for a clarification of policies. It's only 3:30 pacific, though.
Reply
I've also seen it suggested that there be a time limit for editing comments. For example, for the 10 minutes following a comment being posted, the commenter could edit said comment -- after that, they'd no longer be able to. That would allow for the fixing of typos etc in the minutes after hitting "post comment," at least.
Reply
Reply
I'm just sick of accusations that people are still whining about the Strikeout, when really it's a whole host of issues that are the problem. The Strikeout just highlighted those isssues.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I've had this LJ account since 2001. I've been a paid member for a good chunk of that time. Last time there was a permanent account sale, I almost bought one. I'd made up my mind that I was going to get one the next time they came around. Then there was 6A's monumental strikethrough fiasco. I've been unhappy with the slowness of the site and the many errors I've gotten over the past six months (or more!), and I'm extremely unhappy with the way things have been going and they way they seem to be heading with 6A. I really regret, now, re-upping my paid account in early May.
If you buy during the first 36 hours of the sale, we'll donate $25 of your purchase price among four organizations: RAINN, Witness, the EFF and Creative Commons. And if you want your donation to go to just one of the organizations you can instruct us to do that too.
So each group gets 1/4 of $25 for each permanent account? Nice gesture, anyway.
I'm not getting a permanent account. Instead, I think I'll give $150 to EFF(... )
Reply
Dunno exactly what they did to cope with the attack, but my guess from the described behavior is that they throttled incoming traffic from IP ranges including the attack sources. The alternative to them reducing just your service was allowing the DDOS attackers to reduce everyone's service. It wasn't Six Apart's fault in the least, and they did well to keep the service levels normal for most of their customers. (I didn't notice anything, for instance.)
I would agree that compensation in the form of free paid service time is due to the journals that were yanked unjustly.
Reply
I'm definitely under the impression that that was what they were doing, yes.
Reply
The thing is, I've been in situations where I've had disrupted service as a result of something that technically wasn't the service provider's fault, like cable service, and have gotten a pro-rated bill as a result.
LJ is, like it or not, a service provider. While they don't have to compensate for disrupted service, but it's a good customer service move especially since they tracked which clusters were having problems.
Reply
Reply
See, I figured that meant behind the scenes -- for example, what non-public posts would be available to LJ/6A staff if an outside group complained about an LJ users journal content.
Reply
The way you put it would make sense, but until we actually see the ToS that spells it out, we just have these vague statements.
Again, I don't have a problem with 6A/LJ setting policy. My problem is they expect people to turn over a lot of money to them before they set that policy.
While I understand that the perm sale was scheduled and that it was going to happen no matter what, they could have pushed it off a month or two to deal with this other stuff. It wasn't until there were pages and pages of people pointing out on no less than three communities that they didn't want to pay unless they knew what they were paying for that we got some promise that they'd unveil the ToS today.
Reply
and making commitments about how you can expect us to protect your private content and resist intrusions into your privacy.
kind of sounds like there's stuff going on that hasn't been admitted to. Otherwise why would there need to be talk about "how private content can be protected?" I mean, that's what f-lock and private posts are for, isn't it?
I wouldn't be HAPPY if they decided that all posts with X content needed to be f-locked, but it would be a hell of a lot better than having my LJ suspended or deleted because of said content. Especially since that policy sure didn't exist when I forked over the money for a permanent account.
Now I'm waiting to see if we actually get that clarification by this evening.
Reply
Something tells me that his definition of "a good deal of clarity" and mine will not be mixy things.
Reply
Leave a comment