Blocking image feed as a default for journals

[carta]

Title
Blocking image feed as a default for journals

Short, concise description of the idea
Incorporate an on-off toggle in the user info setup page allowing users to select whether their journal is included in the recent update feeds.

Full description of the ideaI understand that images posted in LiveJournal are posted in a public forum unless FO or

Comments

Security through obscurity is a POOR idea

[decadence1]

No. I don't like this idea.

wider audience than the people who have her friended

If they're restricted to Friended people then they won't appear in the feed.
Also it refreshes about every 20 seconds anyway!

I'm SO tired of the hysteria every time this feature is mentioned - the disabling of this via the console DISABLES ALL recent activity from appearing in the recent feeds - the front page of this site and the recent posts feature? Yep it excludes you from that too. Except THAT is universally liked and I have not *EVER* seen moaning about it.

Everyone is happy for others to share in the innermost parts of their life because making new friends is what life's all about but the moment you suggest people might see their cat pictures? Well the's the end of the frickin' world! It's crazy.

People who write the image feed programs won't like it.
They don't write the feed, the feed aggregator exists on LiveJournal. They're just webpages

[decadence1]

Oops correction to my comment, it's nearer 5-15 that seconds the feed refreshes (of course they still aren't actually copied) not 20s so almost real time.

Re: Security through obscurity is a POOR idea

[asciident]

It was approved because the original poster is requesting that the feature be opt-in rather than opt-out.

I would also ask you to be more polite in your responses here; it is not acceptable to be hostile if you wish to disagree with an idea.

Re: Security through obscurity is a POOR idea

[midnightmadness]

I would also ask you to be more polite in your responses here

Don't even bother trying to appeal to her. She is a total 100% bitch that will completely deny how unbelievably rude she is and then she'll start crying "foul play", "TOS Violation", etc. when you start confronting her on it. I've butted heads with her several times here. She'll always be a bitch and she'll never understand or see herself for what she really is.

[tsutton]

If it's posted in public, then it's for public world to view.

If you want to restrict it, post it as friends only. Sorted.

[decadence1]

Allows every user the option of protecting images and bandwidth, instead of just those "in the know"

Every user has the option of protecting images (backdating, Friends-only etc) that they want to be non-public by making them non-public(!). As for bandwidth they can do that by editing the configuration file on their server if they think they need to - it's been explained in the FAQs for years. Moreoever, most users use sites like PhotoBucket free of charge so bandwidth is (almost) not a consideration in any way anyway. Not to mention ScrapBook, which all paid users can access with unlimited bandwidth and 100MB of space at no extra charge too.

One further point, using phrases like "child's fifth birthday party" to slyly manipulate emotions is a most unfortunate choice on your part, in my opinion.

[lynda]

As someone who's had her photographs stolen to be used as bases for graphic art without permission or compensation, I'd say that's the real issue here. Why would anyone possibly think that just because you have the image posted in a public format it was up to the world for the taking? What if I don't want to have to make a post "friends only" to share a picture? I'm still wrong for not wanting my picture to be picked up by an image picker where people will feel that any of those images are up for grab for whatever purpose they wish?

[trbleclef]

? What if I don't want to have to make a post "friends only" to share a picture?

Then you post it publically and chance someone copying it just like on any other site on the Internet. It's not like they couldn't be found randomly.

If someone copies them... assert your copyright

[carta]

It's not like they couldn't be found randomly.Hypothetical: I have a British Blue cat, Sergei, who is known for ransacking my kitchen and tossing the paper towels around. Suppose I take a picture of him, save it on my server as ". . . /pix/355gv3.jpg" because that's how the file is named when I pull it off my digital, and post it with the sentence "Here is the perpetrator of the destruction in my kitchen!" The hotlink is on the word "here" because I am unimaginative in my HTML, and also fairly lame. *g* Will Google Images pick this up on a search for "British Blue" or "cats" or even "kitchen"? I can't imagine how; and if I save all of my pictures like this, then the chances are slim that Google Images will catch it. But because I posted it in my LJ, it was captured in the image feed, grabbed by someone I don't know, and my picture of Sergei is posted on a webpage that I have no control over. Did I post it in a public forum? Yes, I did. Was I aware that when you put something on the internet, it's essentially there forever?

nope.

[damnitnicole]

Every user does have the option of protecting images and bandwidth. LiveJournal shouldn't have to change settings like this just because a user may not be educated enough or motivated to look up how to do it.

This would create a false sense of security, anyway, since random people can still find a journal and pictures and read or look at pictures, unless the entries are set to friends-only. Which they should be, if the journal owner is worried about security.

And if you're really worried about security, the simplest solution is to just not post it in the internet.

Re: nope.

[carta]

What if the default remained that every journal is included in the daily feed, and there is an opt-out option in the user setup screens? This wouldn't change much, just add an on/off radio button that would activate the same instruction as going to the Admin Console would, just make it more user-friendly.

Your thoughts?

Re: nope.

[damnitnicole]

I wouldn't have a problem with that, providing it also explains that using that option would not really decrease the risk of random people the user doesn't know looking at their stuff, and too look at FAQ #24 for more on journal entry security.

I like it.

[carta]

Works for me.

[snarkbite]

I agree with the core of this suggestion, which is to make it easier for people to understand that there even *is* this 'feature' where other people can lift their images

[bridgetester]

Wholeheartedly agreed *claps*

People can't act on what they don't know.