How do feeds work on posts with any security, now? Like friends-locked or private? I always assumed the feedbot (or whatever) was considered a non-logged-in user, so only public posts were broadcast, but I've never checked. That's mostly corect, unless the person creating the feed includes their log-in and password as explained at http://www.michaelhanscom.com/eclecticism/2004/07/08/reading-protected-livejournal-entries-via-rss (hopefully that's not clear as mud, I'm very very tired at the moment and cannot think of better words to explain; if you need further clarification lmk).
If that's the case, though, then I imagine content-flagged posts would not get picked up by the feed either, because it is not a logged-in, age-verified user.
Who knows? I'm assuming LJ is most worried about "displaying unprotected adult content on their site", but that might be an incorrect assumption on my part.
BTW, did you see Lupa's post of a reply she got from support explaining this a little more? It sounds like at the moment they would not be blocking content entirely, but interposing an interstitial page (whcih doesn't thrill me either), presumably with an age disclaimer/statement
tyrsalvia briefly filled me in on it, I'll read up on it tomorrow. Thanks for the heads up.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-24 07:13 am (UTC)That's mostly corect, unless the person creating the feed includes their log-in and password as explained at http://www.michaelhanscom.com/eclecticism/2004/07/08/reading-protected-livejournal-entries-via-rss (hopefully that's not clear as mud, I'm very very tired at the moment and cannot think of better words to explain; if you need further clarification lmk).
If that's the case, though, then I imagine content-flagged posts would not get picked up by the feed either, because it is not a logged-in, age-verified user.
Who knows? I'm assuming LJ is most worried about "displaying unprotected adult content on their site", but that might be an incorrect assumption on my part.
BTW, did you see Lupa's post of a reply she got from support explaining this a little more? It sounds like at the moment they would not be blocking content entirely, but interposing an interstitial page (whcih doesn't thrill me either), presumably with an age disclaimer/statement