Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

LJ strikes again!

You may have seen this item in news wherein someone can purcahse a virtual gift, which would show up on the recipient's userinfo page, with a link to the text the sender put it. Again, someone on LJ's staff didn't think through the potential of abuse on this. Yes, it would cost me money, but I could send a "virtual gift" to anyone on LJ, which would result in an image appearing on their friends list that everyone can see and click on. Then I could post any text I wanted - inflamitory, inappropriate... I wonder if they allow HTML, which I could then put img src to wildly inappropriate material.

And I as a recipient would have no authority to disallow this from occurring, though I could delete it once I knew about it. Basically, LJ is allowing, for as little as $0.99, anyone the ability to deface someone else's userinfo page. Ain't that grand?

I've already submitted a request in suggestions to have a true opt-out feature created. And the funniest part about all this is that I'm not expecting to every recieve a virtual gift anyway.

As I also posted to news, it's starting to bug me that LJ is doing these kinds of things -- nudge and virtual gifts -- on a systemwide basis without comprehending the potential for abuse, and not offering these "services" through an opt-in. As such, I'm concerned about future security issues here on LJ, because the mentality just isn't...there.



( 10 comments — Leave a comment )
Feb. 11th, 2006 01:39 am (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the images (as those are fixed by LJ, and presumably inoffensive, although a black rose might be interesting), the text is a problem. I think there should be levels: no-virtual-gifts ever, or at least treating the messages as "screened" and not visible to others until reviewed.

At least they aren't going as far as BoardGameGeek, where there are badges and uberbadges in addition to your icons for geekgold, as well as supporter badges and the ability to pay to not have the ads.

But still, I think they need to think things out a bit more. But I understand their situation: they are trying to bring in more income without going to advertising or having to get rid of free accounts. These stilly virtual flowers will be loved by the high school crowd. It is us adults that get concerned, because we know better.
Feb. 11th, 2006 01:45 am (UTC)
I've been saving up a few pennies just to annoy someone> This is the perfect annoyance. Now I wonder who I can choose to annoy........*smirk*
Feb. 11th, 2006 06:12 am (UTC)

here! free even! lol
Feb. 11th, 2006 06:17 am (UTC)
It's bugging me that apparently their marketing people are running the show. That's pretty much the kiss of death for any company, especially a technology company. Marketers NEVER think things through.
Feb. 11th, 2006 06:21 am (UTC)
...and thus Dilbert continues to get fodder.
Feb. 11th, 2006 06:27 am (UTC)
You should have used that icon in your response to the news post. It's genius.
Feb. 12th, 2006 08:14 am (UTC)
I've always wondered what group of people are most likely to have paid/permanent accounts: the fifteen year old grrrlz who post se7en x/day about the banal minutae of their lives that give LJ a bad name, or us older people who have jobs and money who post maybe seven times a week about the banal minutae of our lives.

Given the latest crop of features from the six apart crew, I guess I have no reason to doubt where LJ's loyalties lie.
Feb. 12th, 2006 10:23 am (UTC)
Just a quick check - did you screen some/any of the comments to your post on suggestions? Because (as communities work) it would either have to be you or the community mod who did it. (Thanks for your post, by the way: I've been steering people over to it.)
Feb. 12th, 2006 11:15 pm (UTC)
I was wondering why the posts in that thread had a grey bar instead of the normal blue... No, I have not screened any of the posts to that entry. However, I just noticed in replying to a posting by gerald_duck that it unscreened his comment. Funky.

I'm guessing, at this point, the LiveJournal/SixApart has screened that branch of the conversation. To what level, I don't know.
Feb. 12th, 2006 11:21 pm (UTC)

I just went through the whole post and comments. Aparently, since I am the poster, I can see everything. If, indeed, the grey bars are comments that have been screened, then there are random branches throughout the post that are screened. All but the "can you show me where abuse occurred" posts are trivial comments a la your "I sent you a dead fish" and a reference to hidejournal.

I can understand the "can you show me abuse" thread being screened so that only support people can see abusive behaviour, but I personally would have allowed the comments by dougs and the ensuing conversation.
( 10 comments — Leave a comment )