Do the facts speak for themselves?

[dsrtao]

http://stewardess.livejournal.com/288147.html

(brief summary: LJ has started censoring the results of the http://www.livejournal.com/interests.bml?view=popular&mode=text Popular Interests report.)

Comments

[ladymacgregor.livejournal.com]

In the interests of full disclosure: I didn't even know there *was* a search, and frankly, the less ability the random public has to find my LJ, the happier I'll be. (Not that there's much in it . . .)

I don't see anyone giving LJ the benefit of the doubt: what if they're actually trying to PROTECT their users? Not from people who would be sympathetic to gays, fandom, etc., but from people who actively look for these types of people to "troll" them? I've seen troll attacks in fairly vanilla LJ entries (and they always startle me *sigh*); I don't even want to imagine what might happen to J.J. GayGuy who's openly out and discusses his life & times in his LJ.

[dsrtao]

Well, the only way to get an interest listed in that search is to put it into a specific box on your user info page. If you don't want to be listed as interested in turnips, just take turnips out of that box, or don't put them in in the first place. There's no spider crawling LJ entries looking for keywords to catalog you. (That I know about, anyway.)

No, that's not a reasonable spin.

[dsrtao]

You're doing a pretty good job of having a pseudonymous LJ account, by the way, with a minimum of personal information and no interests listed. Don't worry -- we know who you are.

[ladymacgregor.livejournal.com]

Well, exactly. Those whom I feel safe knowing who I am, know who I am (or can make a pretty good guess). For the random public, I want to make it as difficult as possible to find me - nasssssty sussssspicious paranoid person that I am.