281–290 of 304 posts
I have been trying "Facebook at Work" at work. As we already had a Facebook group for the company it made sense. This is not a tool to compete with LinkedIn. It is a tool that competes with e-mail/mail lists. Somethings now make much more sense. From a security point of view, in a company over one thousand employees, it is easier to add or remove employees as they are hired or they left the company. Also it is easier…
This is a product I would actively shun. For better of worse, my prejudice of facebook is that it is an outstanding source of the following types of content: Humblebrag b.s. instagram photos passive aggressive shitposting about politics I can use social networks at work- but if they actually brought facebook in and demanded that we used it, I might consider quitting. I'd probably write a python script to repost rando…
Do you really think people would post the same stuff to their 'work feed' as their 'personal feed'? Actually you know what.. probably
You need higher-ups to start the trend, and answer tough questions candidly, but once that is the case, people with things to say will put forward similarly clear and pointed arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't be so sure your experience matches everyone else's. The 'we' you mentioned does not include me. I will add all my work contacts on LinkedIn but I will only add a few (about 5%) on FB; ones who I socialise with outside of work.
True. That part probably depends on how big are the companies you work for. It seems very customary to add at least everyone on your direct team to Fb though.
I clicked this hopeful that Facebook had made a new product tailored to the needs of an office. Instead it seems like they recently decided that their existing product just happens to already be the perfect product for the office and rebranded it. I don't buy this at all, teams don't actually collaborate by sending each other green giraffe stickers.
Some are casual references to insiders jokes, but all were generally clear enough to get the point across and funny enough to soften the blow of disagreeing. Positive reactions with the humour or intensity of an over-excited gif are great to convey not just a green light, but support from higher-ups.
There was a clear bias towards younger people in using those appropriately and consistently.
This ignores mountains of evidence that shows realtime, synchronous communication makes you less productive due to reducing (or eliminating) your ability to focus.
Uh... Is this an attack on Slack? I have so many things to say about this but the last time I said anything anti-F B on H N I got lawyers against me. Please god people don't use this. Edit: I'm going to qualify my sentiment. FB thinks that "making the world more connected" is a good thing (TM) -- and in an utopian sense that may be true... But FB is not utopian. See the fucking onion article. You all know the one. Th…
In all seriousness, I don't know the onion article you're referencing and I am wildly curious now...?
I clicked this hopeful that Facebook had made a new product tailored to the needs of an office. Instead it seems like they recently decided that their existing product just happens to already be the perfect product for the office and rebranded it. I don't buy this at all, teams don't actually collaborate by sending each other green giraffe stickers.
Facebook actually uses Facebook heavily internally. Groups, calendars, etc. It's certainly not a mandate, it's used because it works for them.
It actually is. The vast majority of essential information is in there; HR tools, some IT stuff is based on integration with the Facebook codebase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook actually uses Facebook heavily internally. Groups, calendars, etc. It's certainly not a mandate, it's used because it works for them.
I'd argue that they consciously make it work for them internally, despite lots of pain points solved by other tools better suited for the job. For example, Zuck says he runs the company via Messenger - but a chat tool without selective muting/@mentions (or equivalent) is bound to be messy at the scale at which he's working. Similarly, Facebook's group chat isn't the best archival tool, nor does it support features li…
He does; he’s a bit of an outlier in how he can handle intense communications, but Messenger at his scale is not less manageable than e-mail — it mainly encourages extreme brevity.
The information filtering is done using groups and notification that allow everyone to target their attention; his is focused on high-level groups that distill details from other working groups.
So... Yammer? FB Work: Groups help you make decisions and keep your team on the same page. Yammer: Organize all your team communication in one place with Yammer Groups. Create a single destination for your messages, files, and updates, where everyone has a view of what's going on without all the usual back-and-forth. FB Work: Get through to the people you need right away with Work Chat. Yammer: Spend less time crafti…
I work at ININ, we have a similar product, though we layer contact-center functionality on top of it (and we have a lot of other features too). https://www.inin.com/unified-collaboration
Of course, that's for those that drink deeply from the Microsoft Kool Aid fountain, which I recognize as a group that isn't recognized fully on HN. ININ looks like a nice unified communications system.
This ignores mountains of evidence that shows realtime, synchronous communication makes you less productive due to reducing (or eliminating) your ability to focus.
I actively block Facebook at work with /etc/hosts and I would continue to do so if my workplace installed this.