It blows my mind that people are having "Group Chat" conversations like that via Email. Have they never heard of WhatsApp?
FWD:Everyone
51–60 of 143 posts
Re: FWD:Everyone
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
The security story will definitely be better once we have the plugin, but it's already quite good. So under the current read-only OAuth model: - Tokens can only be used from our servers, and their use is logged by both us and Google - Tokens are rate limited on Google's end, both per user and per app. Both of these combine to make any sort of large scale breach essentially impossible. We also don't access and store a…
I would like a way to proactively opt out of your application/service, so that there is no chance you ever host an email thread I'm on. Do you provide some mechanism for this? Frankly, I'll take legal action if one of my emails ever ends up on your site.
If there’s a need for this we’ll build it. Right now we’ve had a bunch of people express concern about getting too many permission requests or about having emails they don’t want posted without their permission, but neither scenario has materialized yet.
The other option would be to have threads go live in X hours unless someone opts out. Right now our main goal is to have the permission options be clear, intuitive, and consistent so that people start to build up a mental model of how it works.
Re: FWD:Everyone
#53[deleted]
Re: FWD:Everyone
#54Thanks for submitting this, I was surprised to load HN and see it here. I've been meaning to do a proper update on what we've been up to for a while, but basically things that we've done since launching: - 99%+ of non-commercial email threads now parse correctly, better than Gmail in most cases. E.g. check out the inline reply parsing here: https://www.fwdeveryone.com/t/Gb8CYKvGS6uFSXdb_hwiTA/blog-po... - We now supp…
One thing you almost certainly want to change is the site's behavior with Javascript disabled - right now, it just shows a white screen with the text "Loading FWD:Everyone". It's a bit of a pet peeve for me to see pages like this that are primarily static but are not accessible without JS, but I can understand that making a page built with a JS frontend work without it might be more work than it's worth, at least for…
Good suggestion on the noscript.
There is actually a bunch of animation and interactivity on the site though. E.g. if you click on anyone in a thread, you see their bio and their other threads. And when you hover over a user’s popsicle stick on the newsfeed it pops up, which is stupid but oddly satisfying... We tried to give it the feel of popping bubble wrap.
Anyway prerendering more stuff is on our roadmap, so once that’s set up we can reevaluate.
Re: FWD:Everyone
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
In terms of legality there are two separate issues, invasion of privacy and copyright. Things like privacy / libel / slander generally don't apply to the deceased, so in this case I think we can safely ignore that. With respect to copyright, when you send someone an email you're using an agreed upon protocol (RFC 5322, RFC 5598, etc.) that implicitly grants the recipient a copyright. Now you can say this is a bad arg…
IANAL, and so don't know how libel and slander apply to the deceased. I can imagine how estates might have claims. But ??? And even so, there are all the non-deceased correspondents. I had no clue that email protocols "implicitly grants the recipient a copyright". What are cites for that? Neither https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322 nor https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5598 includes "coptright" except in the "Copyright…
The protocols don’t talk about copyright explicitly, but they talk about replying and forwarding. Both of those behaviors are only legal if there is an implicit grant of copyright to the recipient.
Re: FWD:Everyone
#56I joined up, how do I ask for accomodation advice for a week in London in August? Do I have the right idea of the app?
Re: FWD:Everyone
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - Permission requests are becoming optional, at least for now. Previously we required permission for all non-anonymized message contributors, now there will be an option to publish stuff immediately and let people anonymize themselves later if they want. If this is excessively abused we'll re-evaluate this, but we've tried to build things to incentivize good judgment. This is horrible ! I mean, people can always be…
> The default must be requiring explicit permission from all participants If you send me an e-mail, absent an NDA, I generally have permission to disclose it to third parties. If FWD:Everyone required permission from all participants, they would simply fall prey to FWD:Everyone2 who didn't.
From a GDPR perspective,sending an email gives the recipient the implicit permission to store and read the contents and metadata of the email, but not to transfer it to other parties (except the data processors that process the email) or publish it.
Re: FWD:Everyone
#58I joined up, how do I ask for accomodation advice for a week in London in August? Do I have the right idea of the app?
Other way around. If you have conversations in your inbox that you think would be interesting or useful to others, then you should post them! We have a suggestion engine though, so if you enter in your hobbies / interests / work projects into the relevant field on the settings page then we do a pretty good job of surfacing relevant threads. (At least as good as we can do just using metadata search, since we don't actually access anything in your inbox except the stuff you choose to upload.)
But yeah we have a bunch of travel advice like that, it's definitely fun to read.
Re: FWD:Everyone
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - Permission requests are becoming optional, at least for now. Previously we required permission for all non-anonymized message contributors, now there will be an option to publish stuff immediately and let people anonymize themselves later if they want. If this is excessively abused we'll re-evaluate this, but we've tried to build things to incentivize good judgment. This is horrible ! I mean, people can always be…
> The default must be requiring explicit permission from all participants If you send me an e-mail, absent an NDA, I generally have permission to disclose it to third parties. If FWD:Everyone required permission from all participants, they would simply fall prey to FWD:Everyone2 who didn't.
If you send me an e-mail, absent an NDA, I generally have permission to disclose it to third parties
While technically true, I remember the days when publishing private messages was considered heinously rude. We didn’t need disclaimers and contracts and legalese for everything, because people - even on the Internet - behaved like decent human beings.
Re: FWD:Everyone
#60I'm sorry, but the idea of a product designed specifically to facilitate the mass redistribution of communications normally assumed to be private by default is deeply disturbing. Do I need to start including EULAs in every email I send? In what multiverse is this sort of thing okay?
Unless permission requests are mandatory and forever will be (regardless of anonymization), I will automatically refuse to communicate via email (and possibly any other implied-private medium, including one-to-one chats, mail, and SMS) with anyone I know to be using this service; instead, the only communications from me with these people will be through systems/services in which communications are already assumed to be public or shared (e.g. forums, mailing lists, public social media posts, blog posts / webpages, etc.). Likewise, I will never use this service myself; there are plenty of services out there that facilitate public-record written electronic communication while being upfront about it.
To reiterate: my emails to others should be considered private between myself and the recipient unless both of us explicitly consent to their publication, anonymized or otherwise. That's basic fucking courtesy - courtesy which FWD:Everyone seems to be explicitly designed to violate.