status-monitor Direct Messages Question

[JB Lions]

I reported one post that took a direct message and posted it in public. This was the response:

"Direct messages belong to each member in the conversation and at this time there is no rule against posting them publicly. Thank you for understanding."

It says Direct Messages are this -
Direct messages are similar to emails: they allow you to have conversations with other members directly.

Direct messages are basically private messages between 2 people usually. When is that ever ok to post in public?

 

[MapleDots]

I wonder if there is not a way to make a check box marked private that once checked could insert something like...

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure.

Remember with the current system you can invite additional members into the conversation and then what you think is private is still not. If we had a check box that prevented adding another member and added the disclaimer it would make the intention pretty clear.

My disclaimer: I do not endorse sharing direct messages in any way and would not do so. I am simply stating an opposite side for the sake of conversation.

 

[Internet.Domains]

Found this nugget in the NamePros Privacy Policy....."We make a reasonable effort to ensure the integrity and intended privacy of Content."

Anyone care to explain how that does not apply in this situation?
https://www.namepros.com/threads/400-000-for-a-domain-on-namepros.1020185/

 

[Eric Lyon]

Hello,

Please understand that it's unlikely that we will change this policy (Keep reading for solution ideas), and we've given multiple reasons for why that is, which I suggest everyone read here, here, and here. The hacking/security explanation is a small part of the reason but shouldn't be exclusively focused on. A blanket rule that direct messages can't be shared is not a sensible solution.

We would be more likely to add rules around what can't be shared, like this:

• https://www.namepros.com/posts/6170662/

I suggest that we make recommendations for what type of content can't be shared on NamePros, regardless of whether it came from an email, direct message, instant message, etc. It's unlikely that direct messages are going to be treated differently than other mediums like instant messages (Skype, Slack, etc.) and emails. If you can take a message that you received on Skype/Email from someone and post it on NamePros, then you will be allowed to do the same if that message is in a direct message.

It'll be more productive if we shift the conversation that direction and discuss what shouldn't be allowed to be shared on NamePros at all, regardless of its source (Regardless of Where it came from).

Found this nugget in the NamePros Privacy Policy....."We make a reasonable effort to ensure the integrity and intended privacy of Content."

Anyone care to explain how that does not apply in this situation?
https://www.namepros.com/threads/400-000-for-a-domain-on-namepros.1020185/

That means that we will make reasonable efforts to prevent anyone from accessing private content. It does not mean that we will prevent members from sharing content that they legally have a right to share.

Post edited to add: I should also mention that if someone shares content on NamePros that they stole or did not have a right to share, we would certainly delete that content and issue a warning or close their account, depending on the circumstances.


I hope that helps,

 

[NameOmnia]

I am 100% with JB on this. I am not American and I do not know how privacy is treated there but I can tell you that in many countries in Europe rules are quite strict.

Yes sure no one forbids you from sharing a DM or any fort of "private communication" but whether you will have consequences if you do it it is a whole different story. In Europe you would. If someone sued you you would.

Beside that it really should be a no brainer that what is shared privately should remain private; if rules do not state it then ethic should.

 

[Addison]

I voted Yes. Why are people always trying to take away my freedoms??

Voting no is like asking Google to ban my Gmail account because I shared a domain offer that another Gmail user sent to me. Gmail would never try to stop me from doing that nor would they ban my account for it, even if I shared that email message with thousands of other Gmail users or posted it publicly on my blog.

Absolute lunacy going on with this poll.

(No offense to @Internet.Domains. That's my homie. The rest of you voting no... tsk, tsk, tsk)

 

[Dave]

Absolute lunacy going on with this poll.

Another fairy dust smoker here. Hilarious. The only lunatics are the ones voting yes.

I don't think you understand why we're voting no. PRIVATE MEANS PRIVATE. I don't care that they're called Direct Messages (stupid name anyway). So, you post a domain for sale stating 'make offer', I PM you asking what range you're looking for, you tell me $100-200, you would be happy for me to share this info publicly even though someone could've offered you $250?

Perhaps you've sent me a PM asking for a pre-purchase appraisal? I'll go share it with the world. Maybe you're sharing a private story? I'll share that too.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[DaveX]

People keep pointing out the scenario of requesting a price, getting a price, then posting it publicly. It doesn't normally happen but really...so what.

Using the example given, the seller just wants to sell and doesn't care who buys it.

Should it be okay to claim the existence of offers but not have any? Those should be provided if requested.

Are people using dm for such high level talks that require protection? Or are people using this "privacy" to make stuff up?

This forum seems mostly professional but I don't think it's good to use messaging to lie about offers. I would want that exposed.

 

[Addison]

Another fairy dust smoker here. Hilarious. The only lunatics are the ones voting yes.

Oh my, where to begin with you. I'll start with it's a pleasure to make your acquaintance, since we haven't crossed paths till now. FYI, I am allergic to dust mites and don't smoke (not to mention that fairies don't exist; do I really need to explain that to an adult?). The hilarious part is watching you reach to form a logical argument based on illogical foundations.

Jokes aside... you're not known around here for your syllogism, are you? Allow me to properly introduce myself: I'm Addison, and if you can't grasp facile logic, I will Etch A Sketch you a picture so that you can.

PRIVATE MEANS PRIVATE. I don't care that they're called Direct Messages (stupid name anyway)

Hey, watch me do this just like you: PUBLIC means PUBLIC. I don't care that they're called Direct Messages (stupid name anyway). I'm optimistic that you can grasp what I just sketched here.

Direct doesn't imply confidentiality or privacy. If a website uses it that way, it doesn't become ubiquitous. Please reference your nearest librarian and dictionary directly.

rocket science.

Rocket science, you say? How about an experiment?

Head over to Twitter, tweet a message from your Twitter direct messages that the person didn't give you permission to tweet, and then let's see if Twitter will create a rule to prevent that and ban you.

Spoiler: Alert

It won't happen, and you lied to yourself if you thought there was a 1% or greater chance that Twitter would ever do that.

Bear with me, Etch A Sketch pictures take time...

Why are you asking for a rule on here that doesn't exist on a single analogous website that is a household name? Only smaller websites should have unnecessary, mindless rules? Yes, that makes sense (sarcasm).

This isn't rocket science.

I'm with you on that. Good thing, because I can't Etch A Sketch a rocket.

 

[DaveX]

Whether or not a conversation is kept private is between the individuals conversing. I can't see it being any other way. The parties each have rights. I don't know why this is so difficult. The platform should not be responsible for policing conversation "Leaks" by members.

 

[JB Lions]

Whether or not a conversation is kept private is between the individuals conversing. I can't see it being any other way. The parties each have rights. I don't know why this is so difficult. The platform should not be responsible for policing conversation "Leaks" by members.

It's not tho at Namepros. Just one can decide to post in public, even if the other participant doesn't want it public. That's why private usually means private. And NP should be responsible for policing, since they own the place and can set the rules. That's part of what admins/mods are supposed to do, enforce rules.

All this outside stuff of legality, hacking etc was just introduced to muddy what is a simple conversation.

 

[DaveX]

It's not tho at Namepros. Just one can decide to post in public, even if the other participant doesn't want it public. That's why private usually means private. And NP should be responsible for policing, since they own the place and can set the rules. That's part of what admins/mods are supposed to do, enforce rules.

All this outside stuff of legality, hacking etc was just introduced to muddy what is a simple conversation.

Should a seller claiming they have received offers be required to provide them on request?

Should a member be able to fabricate a private conversation?

 

[Internet.Domains]

I voted Yes. Why are people always trying to take away my freedoms??

Voting no is like asking Google to ban my Gmail account because I shared a domain offer that another Gmail user sent to me. Gmail would never try to stop me from doing that nor would they ban my account for it, even if I shared that email message with thousands of other Gmail users or posted it publicly on my blog.

Absolute lunacy going on with this poll.

(No offense to @Internet.Domains. That's my homie. The rest of you voting no... tsk, tsk, tsk)

Addison - You mention "Freedoms"....It should be known that the right to privacy is one of the greatest freedoms one can have. It is the difference between liberty and tyranny.... This debate is more about freedom than anything else. Having a reasonable expectation of privacy when using Direct Message is a small freedom, however it should be granted....

 

[JB Lions]

Should a seller claiming they have received offers be required to provide them on request?

Private message means private. If you and I are talking about something via Private Message, it stays there as far as I'm concerned unless permission is granted from the other party to share publicly.

 

[Dave]

Direct doesn't imply confidentiality or privacy. If a website uses it that way, it doesn't become ubiquitous. Please reference your nearest librarian and dictionary directly.

You're correct. Read below.. (DM's should have an expectation of privacy as suggested, by default).

Why are you asking for a rule on here that doesn't exist on a single analogous website that is a household name? Only smaller websites should have unnecessary, mindless rules? Yes, that makes sense (sarcasm).

Hahaha. Thanks, I haven't laughed so hard for a while. What household names are you referring to exactly? Do you understand the term 'professional courtesy'? That is what we're asking for here. PROFESSIONALISM. By default, DM's or whatever you want to call them should have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and no further sharing of said messages should be allowed without consent of all participants. I don't give a shit about legalities or such. I don't give a shit about your household names, considering you are generation z you're most likely referring to Facebook... if so then that is hilarious.

Have a nice day.

 

[JB Lions]

I don't think it even matters at this point. I think it was decided that people can share private messages around here, even tho the majority here would disagree and most forums on the internet.

 

[Internet.Domains]

I don't think it even matters at this point. I think it was decided that people can share private messages around here.

That does not make that decision right....Freedom is always worth fighting for...

 

[DaveX]

Private message means private. If you and I are talking about something via Private Message, it stays there as far as I'm concerned unless permission is granted from the other party to share publicly.

So you support a system that enables a person to claim a message exists that doesnt? That doesn't sound right.

 

[DaveX]

Next thing you know, people will want to take away the ability to have two NP accounts.

Then I won't be able to share conversations I have with myself.

 

[Dave]

So you support a system that enables a person to claim a message exists that doesnt? That doesn't sound right.

I agree that those tactics are shady and unfavourable but even if people are OK with allowing private messages to be shared publicly someone could still claim that message exists. They don't have to prove anything to anyone. Think about how or why for a moment.

 

[Internet.Domains]

Next thing you know, people will want to take away the ability to have two NP accounts.

Then I won't be able to share conversations I have with myself.

.........Make sure you don't post the Direct Messages, because NamePros allows you too. In the event you post the DM we may have lots more to talk about.