Interesting idea, but anything that wants to read my email is a big Nope.
Would be much easier and persuasive to the privacy-sensitive to provide an email address to send emails to and process them from there.
FWD:Everyone
91–100 of 143 posts
Re: FWD:Everyone
#92I'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 v…
The thing is, they could easily extract participants and require opt-in from all parties.
Re: FWD:Everyone
#93Sync my inbox? So basically, if you get hacked, all my emails are public. Or at the very least, an untrusted third party (you) gets to read everyone's private email? No way I'll use it, nor allow anyone else I know to do so.
Sadly you won't have any say in the latter.
Re: FWD:Everyone
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really hope this does well (because I'd like to discover more interesting and useful content). I've been on the home page a few times and haven't yet signed up. My behavior on the homepage has been to click the "more example threads" button. I'd guess that the thing that would make me more likely to sign up is to be able to see/discover more great threads before signing up. (Similar suggestions that people have giv…
> I really hope this does well (because I'd like to discover more interesting and useful content). Thanks! Expect to see more content in the near future. And we definitely need to redo our front page and incorporate more cool content. It's a lot better than when we launched, but I feel like we haven't quite hit a level of professionalism that's reflective of the rest of the site. We’re trying to avoid raising capital…
If you want the old school Fortune 500 folks you should take aim at Sharepoint. It's still how this kind of thing (internal corporate blogging) gets done at big old corporate beasts.
Do you even have a sharepoint add-in?
Re: FWD:Everyone
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's still the default. That's good to know. > There are lots of legitimate use cases for publishing stuff without permission though, e.g. emails from Steve Jobs or whatever. Just because he's dead, and was a public figure, is it morally acceptable to publish private email? Or even legal, without permission from his estate? A quick search gives me the following. https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2018/04/is-i…
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…
Careful stating this so matter-of-factly. The law doesn't care about implementation details and implied copyright grants are tough to argue for. If I allow you to download a copyrighted work from my site it doesn't give you an implicit right to upload it to other people just because your browser has that feature.
Check out section A of http://nulawreview.org/extralegalrecent/do-not-forward-why-p....
Re: FWD:Everyone
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That line of logic doesn't work. A protocol is neither legal not illegal. It would be like saying that Swedish is illegal. The law largely doesn't care how you do something.
It's also not a necessary condition because an internal company mail server wouldn't run into copyright issues since the company owns the copyright on all their employees' work.
"Uploading a copyrighted work that I downloaded via GET with POST must be legal otherwise HTTP would be illegal."
Re: FWD:Everyone
#97Recently I've been thinking about writing a service which simply has an email address you forward an email to and it makes it publicly available via a URL - useful for things like open letters etc. I'm not sure if this is the same thing, or whether I should just go ahead and make it..
Re: FWD:Everyone
#98Earlier 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.
You have permission to disclose it to 3rd parties, but reproducing and publishing the content is a different beast.
This is one of those cases where the CS logic of "If I can show one person I can show n people" doesn't apply.
Re: FWD:Everyone
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It's called CSS3 mate.
Re: FWD:Everyone
#100I'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 v…
It requires opt-in from all participants in the conversation, as Alex posted down this thread last week:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17401425
> We actually currently require double opt-in permission for each message contributor in a thread to share stuff publicly. That might change in the future, we're still playing around with the model.
And yes, it does violate basic expectations - that's on purpose.