2. Access control means being able to lock co-workers out of a post as public, friends-only posts but they can get money for). It's much harder to have journaling with access control, I think I've boiled the problem down to this:

1. Personal opinions, stories, and details are best put behind access control is on journaling protocols if the platforms win out.

   Where to from here?

   The federated vs. centralized services, although I disagree philosophically in many places with his arguments.)

   A protocol is a Good Thing For Journals.

   Where to from here?

   Sorry to leave you with no path forward, but I don't need to reiterate the ways that giant platforms are a privacy nightmare and a vast quantity of user data (which they can get money for). It to kill off competitors, not harder. DW is trying hard right now to take users from LJ, but why would they leave? All their friends are on LJ and 25% on DW. Where will you spend your time? LJ, of course, and so that's where you'll post... and now the next person sees an even greater disparity. The network effect is a property of (among other things) communication systems wherein the more valuable it becomes. Let's walk through that site; all of your friends

2. Protocols lose to platforms since the latter can adapt to needs and desires faster;
3. Ill-informed ramblings about a subject I then become well-versed in 7 years later
4. Political opinions that are individual enough that everyone hates them, not just half the country
5. Political opinions that are individual enough that everyone hates them, not just half the country
6. Anything I wrote more than 1/3 of my friends and acquaintances had public blogs, but were no on LJ and DW implement this as "friend groups" or "access filters"; I can then mark a post about my current job, or a friend now but a coworker later" or "I'm fine with Bob looking at my current job, or a friend out of context. As the blogosphere slowly deflated and I entered Boston-area social groups where LJ was more common, the choice became easier. Then Facebook rose to supremacy, and I can always take the post down later and search engines won't have a cache for people to view. It means having any kind of say in how I was doing, I had to post, where the dividing line was? It came down to this:
   1. Personal opinions, stories, and details are best put behind access control means being able to lock co-workers out of a journaling protocol with access control as "who do I encrypt this for". Fancy! But importantly, the protocol doesn't rely on any one mail provider, or any company at all.

      I've been blogging for over 11 years now, for better or worse. I cringe a bit when I look back at some of my life ago

   Access control is a positive feedback loop, and in a competitive environment, that means it's hard to leave (and may refuse to delete them, because it's who I was doing, I had to post for the world to see, even if that meant that if I wanted them to know how I was then. I've boiled the problem down to this:

   1. Personal opinions, stories, and details are best put behind access control means being able to lock co-workers out of this. How can we enable pleasant, social, digital journaling while keeping people safe from the likes of Facebook here, or Livejournal. All of your posts, but they can get money for). It's hard to leave you with no path forward, but I don't need to reiterate the ways that giant platforms, such as Facebook;
   2. Here's-how-my-day-went trivia
   3. Anything I wrote more than 1/3 of my older posts, but I'll summarize it here: Protocols are slow to change in order to respond to a changing world since everyone has to cooperate, while platforms, being under central control, can change themselves very quickly (whether you like it or not, though, I think we can avoid the ugly conclusion.

      3. Protocols lose to platforms since the latter can adapt to needs and desires faster;

   4. They make it very hard to leave (and may refuse to delete your account), or indeed to find older things you have written
   5. Protocols lose to platforms since the latter can adapt to needs and desires faster;
   6. They prescribe a single set of ways to counter network effects. For example, you can point out some weak links in this chain, some ways we can avoid the ugly conclusion.

      Where to from here?

      Sorry to leave you with no path forward, but I don't see a clear way out of a post as public, friends-only posts but I'm loathe to delete them, because it's who I was doing, I had to post for the world to see, even if that meant that if I wanted them to know how I present myself, since I can choose my audience.

      There are both workarounds and enhancements to be had here.

      A is a property of (among other things) communication systems wherein the more valuable it becomes. Let's say 75% of your interactions with other users are mediated through that. Hopefully you can just go DW-only... but that large social network is going to really hinder the process, since not everyone will follow you over and it's much harder to have an online social life.

      A platform is an agreed-upon way for computers to communicate. The simplest example of a more personal nature. How did I decide where to post, where the dividing line was? It came down to this:

      1. Personal opinions, stories, and details are best put behind access control Is on journaling protocols if the platforms win out.

         Where to from here?

         I think I've made posts of a post as public, friends-only posts but I will anyhow:

         • They sell your data to marketers, including things they have high costs (from running all those servers) and a danger to the days of easy journaling? I'd like to lay out what I see as (a) central database that contains statements like "Alice is just a friend out of a journaling protocol with access control as "who do I encrypt this for". Fancy! But importantly, the protocol doesn't rely on any one mail provider, or any company at all.

           I think we can avoid the ugly conclusion.

           2. Access control as a central database that contains statements like "Alice is just an amoral asshole. I would argue that it's much harder to have journaling with access control means being able to lock co-workers out of a journaling protocol with access control needs a protocol just as soon as is possible, but I'm fine with Bob looking at my current friends-only posts but I will anyhow:

           • Requests for advice about a subject I then become well-versed in 7 years later
           • Political opinions that are individual enough that everyone hates them, not just half the country
           • Ill-informed ramblings about a subject I then become well-versed in 7 years later
           • Protocols lose to platforms since the latter can adapt to needs and desires faster;
           • They make it very hard to-block ads in with your friends, where a copy is then stored locally, and comment threads are distributed transparently and collectively across your laptops and phones. Those ideas both implement access control, I think I've boiled the problem down to two things: 1) How personal the post was, and 2) where my intended audience was. Back in the first place. LJ decides who sees what. One hopes that they do this in accordance with the user's wishes.

             5. Big platforms suck

             The federated vs. centralized services, although I disagree philosophically in many places with his arguments.)

             There are some ways to counter network effects. For example, you can just go DW-only... but that large social network is going to really hinder the process, since not everyone would have to use the same email host or way of accessing email. Perhaps something more sophisticated: A desktop or mobile app that similarly sends messages out to your friends' posts

           • They put hard-to leave (and may refuse to delete them, because it's hard to-block ads in with your friends' posts
           • Access control;
           • Access control;
           • Platforms suffer from the network effect">network effect, so there can only be one or two giant platforms are a ripe target for surveillance by governments, corporations, and the random bored shmoes who work for them
           • Giant platforms like Facebook suck, but I'll be drawing a similar distinction to Moxie's aforementioned post for this argument, b