Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Rilgin

(795 posts)
9. An easier point to understand
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 04:00 PM
Jul 2015

It is an easy concept that if you do not want a public forum with everyone having full access and freedoms, then keep it private. That is the easiest concept in the world.

If I want a discussion with only my friends and supporters, I do not broadcast our discussions through speakers to the street or stand on a soapbox. I invite them to my house and we discuss in our living room. Thus we do not hear anything from people we dont want to hear from.

People do not always look at what group a post initiated in because its not really relevant to the subject matter of a thread. Newbies to DU might not know that your group wants to be protected from critical posts when they read your posts in a public forum surrounded by posts that everyone can comment on. The Greatest Thread page does not identify your group as a protected group or identify that it is different than every other group that goes to Greatest or Latest Threads.

Keeping protected groups accessible only through their link should be the DU set up. This is not a hit on the HRC group. However, if you are constantly complaining like the OP that this is a protected group, you might want the software to make it easier. If someone wants to just post nice things about a candidate, they can find the protected group. If they want to read a thread of all sides, they can go to the public pages.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Hillary Clinton»A reminder that this room...»Reply #9