Thanks so much for your input, babe! :)

What specific identity issues are you concerned about?

And 16 others. :)

Some of the proposals have suggested allowing users to remove themselves from someone else's friends list/ban these users from adding them, citing they should have control over who has access to their journal.

So ... Person A wants to have the power to remove herself from Person B's list, citing she should have control to who reads her.

Privacy, yes, but this IS THE INTERNET. I'm sorry, you put your journal in a public space, you don't get to choose who can friend you to read it. Why should you have control over someone else's choice? Why is your choice so much more important than their choice?

It just aggravates me to no end, the degrees people think they should have control over public access information. Yes, I know you can do it on GJ, but that doesn't make it right. Privacy only goes so far. This is the internet, grow up.

(Not that this is directed at you, dear, just ... grrr!)

*nod* I can see that argument, but there's also a lot of spammers out there in internetland that serial add, and others that troll so I can really see both sides of this issue.

I wouldn't want someone who was like "diebabiesdie" as their journal and posted pictures of babies being killed, or what not, because it would reflect poorly on me for that to be in any way associated with my journal. I think it's an issue that needs to be addressed with caution though, on both sides.

So we're really dealing with two issues- spammers and trolls; and then people that you are, for whatever reason repulsed by, reading your journal.

One should be stopped, and you should have the power to get rid of them. The second? Well, I'm sorry, you shouldn't get to have that much control over a public thing. What if diebabiesdie likes your random posts and wishes to read them? Why should you have any control over what he can read?

I just don't understand.

(16 filling how many positions?)

I dont think it would keep them from reading posts, just from replying or showing up on your profile.

And 17 total English speaking users running for one English speaking user space, so the more word that gets out there, the better, so that people can make an educated decision and choose the candidate that reflects their needs the best.

You can already keep them from showing up on your profile by suppressing the 'friend of' feature. I do it.

And unless you ban them, why shouldn't they be allowed to reply? (I find the fact that people would ban someone because they disagree on viewpoints to be slightly disgusting, but that's just me-people can do as they will).

Definitely. I think a lot of people don't want to utlize that particular option.

And I don't block anyone. I can only recall doing it once when a journaller was threatening another journaller, and decided that was out of control and banned the offending party.

That doesn't mean control over another person's journal should be given to them. (Control by means of controlling their friend's list). There's an option, they should use it. This doesn't call for a new option that blurs the line over privacy and control.

That's different from blocking 'diebabiesdie' because you have a hifference in ideas and beliefs.

*sigh* It's a complicated issue. I realise I'm in the vast minority here.

I think the main thing is being able to block them from the profile and being able to block them from commenting on the journal. I think if you make public posts on your journal anyone who's logged in or not can see them just by logging onto them.

I don't think that crosses a privacy line personally as it's the same options currently available, it would just make them more accessible to all users to utilize as they please.

If diebabiesdie has never done anything to you, but wishes to reads you, and friends you, should you have the right to block yourself from appearing on his friends list? Even if you ban him, should you have that right (because as you said, public entries you can't really do anything about)? And if you should, why should you?

If you ban him from commenting and he wants to read, why should you have the right to stop him from placing you on his friends list? It's not spamming, it's not trolling; he just wants to read what you have to say. You've already done all you can (and, I feel, all you should be able to do), but your journal exists in a public space. You shouldn't have the right to infringe on someone else's right to read it.

Then perhaps it's more important that it isn't blocking him from having it on his friends page but showing up on either parties friendslist in their profile area, and only there. Then everyone can still read the items, but there isn't hte issue of having my or diebabiesdie's name on either of our profiles.

But you're on the internet. That's the risk you take. Everything else is just ....

Stupid, I guess.

(I really don't know why I feel so strongly about this, either. I just think the solution should be a nice 'get over yourself'. But that's why I'm not running for anything. ;))

:) I think this is a good compromise for all involved.

The compromise being looking for a way for neither name to show up on either friends list?

What should happen is (if you're going to continually call it a 'friends list' someone can only appear on either list if the exchange is mutual- cut out the friends and the friends of crap.

Otherwise, call it, 'journals subscribed to' or something, which is a whole lot more accurate, and let whomever the journal user subscribes to, appear.

I don't hold a lot of hope for the second (my preferred) option, but the first, the compromise ... that's actually a decent compromise. A realistic one, one that still retains full sovereignty of both parties' hidden "friends" list. :) And then diebabiesdie can continue to read you, and you can remain in the peace of not being associated with him.

See? I like you. Now go win!

Thanks love. :) I like you too. *hugs*

I really feel that I can make a difference.