From deor

[ambitious_wench]

I am not, nor will I ever be, a user of any service that defeats other journal's privacy filters.

Comments

[docjeff.livejournal.com]

Bless you! :)

[scascot.livejournal.com]

Another take on the "Frienditto is the Antichrist" thing can be found at http://www.livejournal.com/users/subbes/1112291.html

Summary: don't be afraid of Frienditto - be afraid of those that you give access to on your LJ.

Either way, via Frienditto (or any other archiving service, such as Google), I don't share friends-locked posts without permission from the LJ'er. You should also bear n mind that posts that aren't friends-locked are available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. As an example, the above link was found by Googling for "Frienditto".

Also, FWIW, the Frienditto site seems to be down, so I can't form an independent opinion of what Frienditto does or doesn't do.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

You should also bear n mind that posts that aren't friends-locked are available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. As an example, the above link was found by Googling for "Frienditto".

Actually, LJ offers the option to block crawler-based search engines from indexing/archiving journal entries*, and some of us exercise that option for precisely this reason. See if you can find the non-locked post in my LJ that uses this phrase: "excerpt from an editorial running in those well-known bastions of pinko liberalism, the Army, Navy, Marine, and Air Force Times."

The material is still *technically* available to anybody, but unless they have a vast amount of time on their hands it's nigh-impossible to find - until somebody archives it on another site which doesn't, AFAIK, preserve my "no robots" request.

*Technically, it just asks them not to store those pages, but AFAIK all the major search engines honour that request.