So If you do a limited share to a cricle, and if anyone in those circles reshares it with extended circles, all your cricles that you initially decided not to share with will now see it.
Seems to be some kind of loophole that is the opposite of what the circles are for.
There used to be a "don't allow anyone to reshare this" checkbox but i can't find it on the post bit ... mmmm
edit: found it, after you post it when you click the drop down arrow there is a "disable reshare" option.
Yes, you can disable resharing on any post. Personally, I'd like an option to make that the default setting.
I haven't used Google + yet, but that is a moronic feature. You make a post you don't want reshared. I copy and paste it as a brand new post and type your name into it. Guess what, now it's reshared. Having that feature gives people a false sense of privacy. It's the same as protected Twitter accounts, completely moronic.
If you don't want everyone in the entire universe to know something, do not type it into the Internets! If you digitize any information whatsoever, you must assume that information is now shared with the entire universe. Otherwise, you're just lying to yourself.
You make a post you don't want reshared. I copy and paste it as a brand new post and type your name into it. Guess what, now it's reshared. Having that feature gives people a false sense of privacy. It's the same as protected Twitter accounts, completely moronic.
That's 100% true, but most people won't actually go through the effort of doing that, because the odds are they don't care enough.
The whole "don't put it out there if you don't want it read" still applies. It's not a lockdown, it's a reduction in occurrences.
Even if you do that, it won't have the nice, "XXXX originally shared this post" tag, which is really proof of the original post. If you copy and paste, it would be easy for the original poster to deny having said the thing being quoted.
Even if you do that, it won't have the nice, "XXXX originally shared this post" tag, which is really proof of the original post. If you copy and paste, it would be easy for the original poster to deny having said the thing being quoted.
Even if you do that, it won't have the nice, "XXXX originally shared this post" tag, which is really proof of the original post. If you copy and paste, it would be easy for the original poster to deny having said the thing being quoted.
Even if you do that, it won't have the nice, "XXXX originally shared this post" tag, which is really proof of the original post. If you copy and paste, it would be easy for the original poster to deny having said the thing being quoted.
Even if you do that, it won't have the nice, "XXXX originally shared this post" tag, which is really proof of the original post. If you copy and paste, it would be easy for the original poster to deny having said the thing being quoted.
Screenshots.
You could also edit the HTML with Firebug, then take the screenshot.
You could also edit the HTML with Firebug, then take the screenshot.
Hmm, I hadn't considered that. Now I know what to accuse you of if you ever share something I didn't want shared. And I can ever post a screenshot of you proposing the idea of back up my accusation of fraud.
You could also edit the HTML with Firebug, then take the screenshot.
Hmm, I hadn't considered that. Now I know what to accuse you of if you ever share something I didn't want shared. And I can ever post a screenshot of you proposing the idea of back up my accusation of fraud.
That is one saving grace of the Internets. Even though there is no privacy, there is almost always some amount of deniability. Yeah, someone stole my laptop while I was using it unlocked and logged in, and then posted that.
Why even have circles if you don't care who sees it?
It's easier for me to explain with example so let's do that again. Let's say I have MyPartyPictures.jpg and I want to and will share it with my Bros, using Bros circle. That is because my Bros are the people who would be most interested of MyPartyPictures.jpg and to whom I primary want to share them. Now the MyPartyPictures.jpg might be shared outside of my Bros, but that is no problem, because even when I wanted to focus sharing MyPartyPictures.jpg to my Bros it's not something that I wouldn't ever want to get outside of that circle.
With circles you aim your messages and shares to specific people, but you have to ether really trust those people to keep your stuff on themselves or be ready that things will be reshared and copied over all Internet.
Lets say the MyPartyPictures.jpg is something you and your bros consider awesome, but your family, coworkers and boss wouldn't. You want that awesome pic to be reshared with anyone else in your bro's circles that would also consider awesome. Extended circle sharing would be fine but the problem is it also goes back to everyone else in your own circles. In other words, it would be fine, if not preferred, that it continues to be shared outside of the original circle as long as its not back with your own circles.
It doesnt make much sense the way it is. When you first do a limited share, you already consciously decided that there are circles that you dont want it shared to. Then why should those circles get it if someone decides to reshare it? Really, all they have to do is make it so that the original poster's circles that did not get it at first is excluded from any extended circle reshares. In no scenario can I think of that would want an excluded circle to see something only after it has been reshared and not before.
Except people like me who will do it out of spite, or to teach people a lesson.
OK, so if someone said, "Hey guys, please don't reshare this post, because I want to keep this between just these people," would you still reshare it?
It really mostly depends on whether it's something I want to share at all. If you tell me what you ate for breakfast, I'm not going to reshare it whether it's private or not. It has to be worth sharing in the first place for me to care.
The best example of this are the old old old RIT Anime club guys, like Greg the tape nazi. He would fansub animes, and then not share those fansubs. You were lucky if he screened them at anime club once. You were ten times lucky if copies of the tapes got in the library. Also, there would be people that would make anime music videos, but they would refuse to put them online or share them. They would show them once at just one convention and then keep the tape to themselves. People like this still exist. They make fansubs or scanlations of obscure stuff that nobody will ever license. Then they never put it on bittorrent, they just keep it locked up in their private IRC and only share it with a handful of people they know.
You can be sure as shit if someone shared something like that privately to me, and it was worth sharing to the world, that I would be rebroadcasting it through every appropriate avenue.
You can be sure as shit if someone shared something like that privately to me, and it was worth sharing to the world, that I would be rebroadcasting it through every appropriate avenue.
OK, sure, if I said something like "Hey guys, keep this a secret: I'm going to kill the President tomorrow." You're right for breaking that secret.
I have a friend who posted a private photoshoot for the eyes of her friends only. She said, "Please don't share this around, because of the nature of the shoot." Now, you might be interested in those pictures. Is that the sort of thing you'd care to share with people?
You mean like the FRC internal forum group?
Yes. That's what disabling resharing does. Whenever you choose that option, everyone who sees the post also sees the message "Resharing has been disabled for this post." That is functionally equivalent to telling people directly "I'm sharing this with you guys; don't share it with people that aren't you." It's security through consent and trust in your circles.
All this means is that if I'm unsure of whether or not to share something with Scott, I won't share it with him. :P
You can't give someone social currency and expect them not to spend it.
Sure you can. Secrets are a form of social currency that are exchanged with a particular person to form a very deep bond of trust. Having people you can trust very deeply is an essential component of a person's social network.
You can be sure as shit if someone shared something like that privately to me, and it was worth sharing to the world, that I would be rebroadcasting it through every appropriate avenue.
Thats kind of douchey. If someone doesnt want something to be shared, regardless of what it is and the reason, and they tell you explicitly not to share it, why would you share it? This is no longer a question of whether or not something you put on the internet is "private" but a question of your ethics and morals.
Why I would or wouldn't share it depends entirely on what it is I'm sharing. If someone tells me not to tell someone they are planning a surprise party, I'm probably not going to tell. If they tell me some secret that actually needs to get out, like maybe they tell me they are going to rob a bank, I will alert the police. If they tell me they are going to pull a prank on someone, it's a grey area. I might keep it secret to enjoy the prank, but I might tell if I feel the prank is wrong.
I share the information if I feel it should be shared, and I don't share it if I feel it shouldn't be shared. The wishes of the source of the information are a relatively small factor in making that decision.
This is no longer a question of whether or not something you put on the internet is "private" but a question of your ethics and morals.
I think Scott was making his morals quite clear: secrecy is only useful in limited contexts, and in all other contexts should be ignored. It implies some universal measurement that is more accurate than some person's internal motivations (i.e. why a person wants to keep something secret). That universal measurement is truly constructed by the person making the decision to keep or share the secret; effectively the person making the decision to keep or share the secret values his or her own judgment of the situation as superior to the secret sharer's.
If someone doesnt want something to be shared, regardless of what it is and the reason, and they tell you explicitly not to share it, why would you share it?
This implies that your morals are first and foremost to respect another person's perception of the world and their intents within it, without meddling. Prime directive.
I think, a secret that one wants to kill oneself, and other such secrets, can very quickly turn into a can of worms of what secrets are worth keeping and what secrets are dangerous or harmful to keep.
Two of your good friends are in a relationship. One confides in you that he or she cheated and got something real nasty out of the deal. It's a secret. Don't tell. Respecting this wish is almost certain to cause your other friend to catch something real nasty as well. Do you go with prime directive, in which people make their own decisions and follow their own lives, and learn from their own mistakes the hard way, or do you try to go the CDC route and stem the spread of disease? Either way, the relationship is already pretty fucked up, and either way, you just got involved by having the knowledge shared with you.
Why I would or wouldn't share it depends entirely on what it is I'm sharing. If someone tells me not to tell someone they are planning a surprise party, I'm probably not going to tell. If they tell me some secret that actually needs to get out, like maybe they tell me they are going to rob a bank, I will alert the police. If they tell me they are going to pull a prank on someone, it's a grey area. I might keep it secret to enjoy the prank, but I might tell if I feel the prank is wrong.
I share the information if I feel it should be shared, and I don't share it if I feel it shouldn't be shared. The wishes of the source of the information are a relatively small factor in making that decision.
Losing a friend's trust is the fastest way to lose a friend forever!
You can be sure as shit if someone shared something like that privately to me, and it was worth sharing to the world, that I would be rebroadcasting it through every appropriate avenue.
Let me be more specific. I was specifically referring to the example that Scott was mentioning, i.e. fan media, works of art, etc, not some secret that could bring harm if not told.
You can be sure as shit if someone shared something like that privately to me, and it was worth sharing to the world, that I would be rebroadcasting it through every appropriate avenue.
Let me be more specific. I was specifically referring to the example that Scott was mentioning, i.e. fan media, works of art, etc, not some secret that could bring harm if not told.
Then in this case, I entirely agree with Scott. I'm an information hippy. Love and peace and freedom of information.
You can be sure as shit if someone shared something like that privately to me, and it was worth sharing to the world, that I would be rebroadcasting it through every appropriate avenue.
Let me be more specific. I was specifically referring to the example that Scott was mentioning, i.e. fan media, works of art, etc, not some secret that could bring harm if not told.
If you made a great work of art that could bring joy to a great many people, and you keep it just to yourself, then you are the douche, not me. I would be a douche if I didn't share it with the world. Even if it might upset the person who made it, it's ok. They deserve it for being a selfish ass. The joy that it brings to the people of the world easily tips the scales the other way. If I have the power to force someone to not be a dick, of course I have to do it.
This is something I often disagree with Luke Crane about. He has some old games, like http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?6945-Under-A-Serpent-Sun. He doesn't want to share them because they are old and they suck. I don't understand how it could cause any harm to put it out there anyway. There are a few hardcore fans who would gain joy from it, and it would cause him no harm. If I could get a copy, I would share it, but he's very good at protecting his stuff.
Compare that to Mike Krahulik of Penny Arcade. Take this tweet from yesterday as an example. https://twitter.com/#!/cwgabriel/status/95554252667236352. He is happy just to brighten someone's day and give them a few laughs, by any means. He'll post drawings he made of Wolverine in high school. He doesn't give a shit.
If you have created something that can bring joy, and you refuse to allow it to do its work, I have no qualms about being the bringer of joy. If you want to be an elf who makes toys and locks them in a vault, I'll be glad to be the santa claus who steals them from you and drops them down a chimney.
Comments
edit: found it, after you post it when you click the drop down arrow there is a "disable reshare" option.
If you don't want everyone in the entire universe to know something, do not type it into the Internets! If you digitize any information whatsoever, you must assume that information is now shared with the entire universe. Otherwise, you're just lying to yourself.
The whole "don't put it out there if you don't want it read" still applies. It's not a lockdown, it's a reduction in occurrences.
It doesnt make much sense the way it is. When you first do a limited share, you already consciously decided that there are circles that you dont want it shared to. Then why should those circles get it if someone decides to reshare it? Really, all they have to do is make it so that the original poster's circles that did not get it at first is excluded from any extended circle reshares. In no scenario can I think of that would want an excluded circle to see something only after it has been reshared and not before.
The best example of this are the old old old RIT Anime club guys, like Greg the tape nazi. He would fansub animes, and then not share those fansubs. You were lucky if he screened them at anime club once. You were ten times lucky if copies of the tapes got in the library. Also, there would be people that would make anime music videos, but they would refuse to put them online or share them. They would show them once at just one convention and then keep the tape to themselves. People like this still exist. They make fansubs or scanlations of obscure stuff that nobody will ever license. Then they never put it on bittorrent, they just keep it locked up in their private IRC and only share it with a handful of people they know.
You can be sure as shit if someone shared something like that privately to me, and it was worth sharing to the world, that I would be rebroadcasting it through every appropriate avenue.
I have a friend who posted a private photoshoot for the eyes of her friends only. She said, "Please don't share this around, because of the nature of the shoot." Now, you might be interested in those pictures. Is that the sort of thing you'd care to share with people? Yes. That's what disabling resharing does. Whenever you choose that option, everyone who sees the post also sees the message "Resharing has been disabled for this post." That is functionally equivalent to telling people directly "I'm sharing this with you guys; don't share it with people that aren't you." It's security through consent and trust in your circles.
All this means is that if I'm unsure of whether or not to share something with Scott, I won't share it with him. :P
I share the information if I feel it should be shared, and I don't share it if I feel it shouldn't be shared. The wishes of the source of the information are a relatively small factor in making that decision.
I think, a secret that one wants to kill oneself, and other such secrets, can very quickly turn into a can of worms of what secrets are worth keeping and what secrets are dangerous or harmful to keep.
Two of your good friends are in a relationship. One confides in you that he or she cheated and got something real nasty out of the deal. It's a secret. Don't tell. Respecting this wish is almost certain to cause your other friend to catch something real nasty as well. Do you go with prime directive, in which people make their own decisions and follow their own lives, and learn from their own mistakes the hard way, or do you try to go the CDC route and stem the spread of disease? Either way, the relationship is already pretty fucked up, and either way, you just got involved by having the knowledge shared with you.
This is something I often disagree with Luke Crane about. He has some old games, like http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?6945-Under-A-Serpent-Sun. He doesn't want to share them because they are old and they suck. I don't understand how it could cause any harm to put it out there anyway. There are a few hardcore fans who would gain joy from it, and it would cause him no harm. If I could get a copy, I would share it, but he's very good at protecting his stuff.
Compare that to Mike Krahulik of Penny Arcade. Take this tweet from yesterday as an example. https://twitter.com/#!/cwgabriel/status/95554252667236352. He is happy just to brighten someone's day and give them a few laughs, by any means. He'll post drawings he made of Wolverine in high school. He doesn't give a shit.
If you have created something that can bring joy, and you refuse to allow it to do its work, I have no qualms about being the bringer of joy. If you want to be an elf who makes toys and locks them in a vault, I'll be glad to be the santa claus who steals them from you and drops them down a chimney.