?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
01 July 2008 @ 08:28 am
Suggestion that has substantial mention of permanent members  

 I've made a suggestion regarding loosening restrictions on scripting and embedded contents.  I've asserted that the investment--monetary and psychological--of permanent members is a deterrent to "bad behavior" that might come along with greater freedoms.  Other permanent members have already weighed in on both sides of this suggestion.  I wanted to invite the rest of you to share your thoughts.

Warmly,

-Pete

 
 
Current Mood: curiouscurious
 
 
 
FunBux™ Commissionergerg on July 1st, 2008 01:19 pm (UTC)
I think it would be OK for permanent users to have the ability, but there are very few (comparatively) permanent accounts and there's no way to get one if you don't already have one.

The drama llama would be out in full effect as soon as it was announced that only permanent members could do this, but I agree with your basic premise that it would be nice to be able to use JS/iframes.
Amandabyfaith on July 1st, 2008 01:28 pm (UTC)
What would the ability for "scripting and emedded comments" do? I don't really know what that means. =\
surrey_suckssurrey_sucks on July 1st, 2008 08:03 pm (UTC)
I don't know what that means, either.
Hein: ADM3Afub on July 1st, 2008 01:49 pm (UTC)
I'd love to be able to embed a Google Maps-view in my posts. But I can do without most 'widgets'.
I guess I can live with a link to a page on my own webspace with the map quite well.
Tim: Screwdriverspodlife on July 1st, 2008 02:02 pm (UTC)
I am very happy to have a script free environment here on LJ. I don't want my journal, or my view of my friends page, covered in widgets.
Marvinparanoidandroid on July 1st, 2008 02:21 pm (UTC)
This is a common theme in the comments in the suggestions community post:

"I won't want them and I don't want them on my friends page"

That doesn't mean the facility couldn't be available to others.

For example: I personally dislike the meme infestations, especially ones with poor html structure that end up breaking my friends page... but banning all memes isn't the right answer. It is my choice to not post something I don't want on my journal, and it is also my choice who I add to my friends page. The lack of something is in everyones control to have!

If removing someone from friends page because they post things you don't like seems a bit overkill the other option would be to implement similar options to the image/embedded video ones currently avaiable.
Tim: Screwdriverspodlife on July 1st, 2008 02:37 pm (UTC)
And I make full use of the placeholder feature too!
The Water Seekerplymouth on July 1st, 2008 05:57 pm (UTC)
rock on.

(that is to say - I agree with everything you wrote here)
Daniel the California Highway Guy: lj-drama-llamacahwyguy on July 1st, 2008 02:15 pm (UTC)
I don't think whether one is permanent or not makes scripts safe. The primary reason that the side excludes said material is the fact that there are so many vulnerabilities built around scripting, and especially cross-site scripting. I trust that LJ will be a safe site to browse (other than the time lost); that is certainly not a feeling I have when I go over to MySpace.

We're here for the journaling capabilities (well, at least I'm here for it), not the latest bells and whistles.

Just my 2c
Mr. He Went That-A-Wayremark on July 1st, 2008 09:10 pm (UTC)
+1
Pete 'Happy' Thomashappypete on July 2nd, 2008 01:43 am (UTC)
right...I suggest that LJ is not "just one thing,"
...and there's not just one way to blog.

I wrote up this great "story in pictures" using Google Maps, was really excited to blog it, since it had an "embed" code that I could paste into the embed option in the rich text post editor [the little DVD looking icon, for those not familiar with it]...and then sad when the resulting "embed" was just blank text because google maps widgets weren't supported.
Marcus L. Rowlandffutures on July 1st, 2008 02:27 pm (UTC)
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to vote against.
Pete 'Happy' Thomashappypete on July 2nd, 2008 01:44 am (UTC)
my pleasure...
Please read all the commentary, or as much as you can stand to. This is not quite as "black and white" as you might think on first reading.
Yáng Yuǎn Zhìadudeabides on July 3rd, 2008 02:10 pm (UTC)
Re: my pleasure...
If this is the case, why did you feel the need to screen comments over there?
Pete 'Happy' Thomashappypete on July 3rd, 2008 11:13 pm (UTC)
Re: my pleasure...
The whole -1 thing without explanation or comment rubbed me wrong...I understand and am over it now. Everything is unscreened.
constituent: ATHF Shake Hangconstituent on July 1st, 2008 02:34 pm (UTC)
I wouldn't be keen on such an idea being extended to permanent users (or anybody, to be honest). Really I wouldn't use it much, since HTML suits my needs best. Nonetheless, my problem would be "When Permanent Members Go Bad" and some disgruntled/bored/careless individual decides to create a mess out of sheer irresponsibility.

Sure, the status of a permanent member might be held in higher regard to others, but I wouldn't put it past somebody thinking their $150 is not a sufficient deterrent for screwing around. Likewise, if El Jay wants to open the door for another permanent account sale, you could still get some dodgy person sign up and cause a stir because they think $150 is a worthwhile price to implement malicious script.

My friend page already takes a 'long' time to load, I wouldn't want the load time bogged down further with more toys.





In short, permanent members can be jerks, too.
Spring Nights Forevertallblue on July 1st, 2008 02:51 pm (UTC)
I would really be afraid that LJ would end up like myspace :(
Marvinparanoidandroid on July 1st, 2008 03:01 pm (UTC)
The JS/IFRAME issue is complex.

Whilst a permanent account is indeed an investment of some size, the gain made from a malicious script by someone who knows what their doing is unknown. If the risk:reward ratio is sufficiently in favour of the reward side, it doesn't matter how big the risk is, people will go for it.

I personally would like to be able to use some simple scripts in my style. I think the scripting in the global styles is bloated and in desperate need of being pruned. My paranoid side (which is considerable) doesn't trust every other permanent member enough for this to be allowed, so I will put up with the bloat.

IFRAMES on the other hand could be possible, especially if (as I said above) there was a option to disable them (showing a place holder? - a link to the page?) from your friends page. The problems of cross-site scripts would need to be addressed.

I'm interested to know what kind of scripts you was thinking of using. If there was a demand for common scripts could the answer lie with the LJ code monkeys writing a common library of functions that could be accessed with some LJ specific markup? The drawback to this is twofold... vastly reduced functionality, and waiting for it to be written (and updated) by someone else each time.
Tree of Geeksscaree on July 1st, 2008 08:19 pm (UTC)
I can't add much to your reasoning.

I'm not happy about the idea of scripts, but I trust my friends for the most part not to behave like addlepated twitterbirds.

Providing there was a setting to turn off functionality on your own journal and your friends page(s) I'd have to say let those who want scripts have them. Some of my pages already take a while to load.
Jessicajojobear99 on July 1st, 2008 03:43 pm (UTC)
Even if it were only limited to perm members I'd have my reservations and concerns about the original reason those things weren't allowed. I see more risk than benefit gained.
4th Sector Pathfinderpernickety on July 1st, 2008 03:48 pm (UTC)
Would scripts and widgets allow people to post auto-play music and things like that?

I just really don't see a way in which that will end well, especially on friends and friendsfriends pages.

Considering the number of lj-cut and other html mess-ups that happen every day on my flist, I don't even want to think what'll happen when people handle more complicated scripts.
(Deleted comment)
Knorg Knorgsson: Chip and Gadgetcrackpig on July 1st, 2008 06:28 pm (UTC)
All I know is my gut says maybe.
Johnwibbble on July 1st, 2008 10:17 pm (UTC)
-1
steve98052steve98052 on July 2nd, 2008 12:34 pm (UTC)
Good plan, but I wouldn't want to see automatic approval, even if restricted to permanent users. A well-intentioned "oops" can cause trouble too.

So, thumbs up, as long as there's a system to approve only trustworthy embedded contents. Allowing IFrames that are behind an "expand" icon might work too.