OpenID anonymous for LJ?

Sat Aug 6 05:03:49 PDT 2005

On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 12:52:31PM +0100, Martin Atkins wrote:
> Michael 'hacker' Krelin wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 12:17:15PM +0100, Martin Atkins wrote:
> > 
> >>Michael 'hacker' Krelin wrote:
> >>
> >>>This is indeed a bit too lj-specific, but look, the point is not giving
> >>>OpenID users more credibitily, it's just about separating them from
> >>>anonymous users. And they are definitely different, otherwise what's the
> >>>point of OpenID?
> >>
> >>The point is that the person who commented last time is provably the
> >>person who is commenting this time. If they make good comments you add
> >>them to your "friends list", and they can prove that they are indeed the
> >>person that you trusted earlier.
> > 
> > Doesn't that imply treating OpenID users differently from anonymous
> > ones? Or is there something in my paragraph above that you object?
> 
> They get treated differently in that you are able to add them as a
> friend. Anonymous users don't have a userid, so you can't add them as a
> friend.

Doesn't it make sense to allow comments from users you can possibly add
as a friend (or ban), while disabling comments from others?

> OpenID users you've never seen before are just anonymous posters with an
> identifier attached, though. It's up to each user to decide whether they
> like/trust a given OpenID user.

About as anonymous as LJ user I have never heard of before. Yes, in
fact, they're different, but less than anymous users are different from
OpenID users.

> What are we arguing about, again?

Not much, I believe. I just stated that OpenID users and anonymous users
are different and should be separated from each other (separation
doesn't imply more trust to OpenID users). You answered with a brief
explanation of the benefits of OpenID which I have nothing against. What
couldn't figure is how it contradicts with my statement if it does.

Love,
H