On 18-Jul-2009, at 21:31, Arno Hautala wrote: > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 19:10, LuKreme<[email protected]> wrote: >> On 18-Jul-2009, at 12:15, Patrick Coskren wrote: >>> Ah, what the hell. Let's see what the hep kids are doing these >>> days. >>> >>> <http://twitter.com/pcoskren> >> >> Protected updates is pretty much missing the point of twitter... > > I don't know. I can see some pretty valid reasons for protecting your > feed.
Like? I can only think of one myself, and it's a pretty rarified case. I mean, unless you are using twitter only to talk to a specific set of people (in which case you are basically not using twitter, you're just creating a very small mini-twitter enclave). > Really, the only reason to NOT protect your updates is if you > want others to see your posts without exposing yourself to theirs. Um.. no. Protecting your posts means that you are isolated from the rest of twitter. It means that, for example, if I RT something you said, no one on my followers can go look at what sorts of other things you are saying to see if maybe they want to follow your updates. > Foremost, is keeping the availability of your posts under your > control (ie. away > from your coworkers). Never share your online identity with the cow-orkers. That's not even rule one, that's rule zero! > There's also the idea that if you're worried > about what someone might think of your post, you perhaps should not > post it. Protecting your updates balances this. Erm... people are going to see what you say unless you have no followers. People will repost what you say, you have no control over this. Once you post it, you have to assume that 1) anyone can read it 2) it's permanent. -- No man is free who is not master of himself _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
