Some brief thoughts about friendlock

[tithonium]

I dislike friendlocking posts. If I'm going to say something on the internet, I rather assume anybody can see if, 'cause anybody /can/. I use friendlock when I feel a specific need to, for a specific reason. In the specific case of my previous posts about popcap, I hadn't told my boss and - despite the fact that he has explicitly said he doesn't know where my journal is and doesn't WANT to know - felt it was most appropriate to friendlock them, if only to discourage its spread beyond the direct readership. I had fully intended, and have since done so, to unlock them once I'd informed my boss of the opportunity. I've friendlocked a few other things, mainly when I want to communicate with a specific set of people and can't be bothered to use email (say, 6d toplinks?) or want to allow for group discussion without spamming inboxes. But that sort of need arises fairly rarely.

My life is, as much as it reasonably can be, public.
I mean, really. How can the entire world come to know and love me, if I'm hiding things from them?

Comments

[beaq.livejournal.com]

Of course it's okay to keep compensation private, a matter to be discussed on an individual basis. Life isn't fair, sweets--and neither are compensation packages.

Banning discussion of compensation is one of the things that keeps compensation packages (and their little part of life) unfair. It's kept men paid more than women, hotshot flashes in the pan more than loyal productive employees, etc. Whether that's "okay" is a judgment call.

I don't necessarily think it's always good idea to keep things "fair," but that's for reasons having to do with tact and morale than with leverage over employees or with cost-cutting for its own sake.