Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Users protest over 'creepy' Facebook update (2006)

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 43 posts

Re: Users protest over 'creepy' Facebook update (2006)

#21

Post by NoGravitas »

2sk21 wrote: post #6
ideonexus wrote: post #3

One part of this still infuriates me and restricts my behavior on the platform (which I barely interact with anymore): showing my friends what I click like on if it's a public post. I've had politically-impassioned relatives attack me for liking candidates they don't like or if I comment on a public post and Facebook points my comment out to them. It also works the other way too. I really didn't need to know that my…

Thats exactly the problem with Facebook - no firewalls between the various personas of an individual.

The technical name for this is "context collapse", and it's not just Facebook, but social media more generally.

https://indieweb.org/context_collapse http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2013/12/08/coining... https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2013/01/10/context-c...

Re: Users protest over 'creepy' Facebook update (2006)

#22

Post by Minor49er »

haunter wrote: post #10

Does anyone remember that FB feature when you were able to cross search people? "Men between 20 and 30 who likes football and lives in NYC" It was available for a few months, I don't remember exactly. That was around 2011-12. That was the craziest thing I've ever seen

You can target these users with Facebook's advertisement settings if you're buying ads from them

Re: Users protest over 'creepy' Facebook update (2006)

#24

Post by pjc50 »

Cyph0n wrote: post #17
ben_w wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly why I ended up leaving Twitter. As soon as Twitter started showing me everything my friend marked with a “like” (Favourite? Star?), I started seeing explicit examples of my friends’ kinks.

Rule 1 of social networks: use a different account for NSFW content.

.. which doesn't help unless you tell all your friends to do that as well, and unfollow those that don't.

(I've managed to kill the bringing of other's likes into my feed somehow, which keeps it usable)

Re: Users protest over 'creepy' Facebook update (2006)

#25

Post by graeme »

typon wrote: post #11
haunter wrote: post #10

Does anyone remember that FB feature when you were able to cross search people? "Men between 20 and 30 who likes football and lives in NYC" It was available for a few months, I don't remember exactly. That was around 2011-12. That was the craziest thing I've ever seen

It was available from March 2013 to June 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Graph_Search

They dramatically reduced it after a few months however.

Re: Users protest over 'creepy' Facebook update (2006)

#26

Post by jsjddbbwj »

ideonexus wrote: post #3

One part of this still infuriates me and restricts my behavior on the platform (which I barely interact with anymore): showing my friends what I click like on if it's a public post. I've had politically-impassioned relatives attack me for liking candidates they don't like or if I comment on a public post and Facebook points my comment out to them. It also works the other way too. I really didn't need to know that my…

If someone attacks you for having political views different from his, then that seems like a problem with him, and not with Facebook.

Re: Users protest over 'creepy' Facebook update (2006)

#27

Post by jsjddbbwj »

haunter wrote: post #10

Does anyone remember that FB feature when you were able to cross search people? "Men between 20 and 30 who likes football and lives in NYC" It was available for a few months, I don't remember exactly. That was around 2011-12. That was the craziest thing I've ever seen

I was very sad when they removed it. Current Facebook user search is gimped and simply disappointing. So bad that for some time I wondered if I was part of the bad group of an A/B test.

It was also very good when you could look up people by email or telephone.

Re: Users protest over 'creepy' Facebook update (2006)

#28

Post by kibwen »

johnchristopher wrote: post #15
2sk21 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats exactly the problem with Facebook - no firewalls between the various personas of an individual.

I'd say that's not really the problem with Facebook (well it is but bear with me): long ago, at the end of the 90's, it was highly recommended to use pseudonyms on the Internet because `you never know who's who` and well.. it was right and we didn't know what the Internet could really do. When Facebook/Gmail happened and people were nudged to use their real names... because we need `real` connections. Well, that didn…

I've considered taking pseudonymity one step further by moving it into the real world, and having one name for legal documents and another (or two) for personal use (think Earthsea rules). Seems to work for a few hackers I know, and the best part is that it doesn't require any legal name change rigamarole, since nobody can stop you from just start calling yourself whatever you want whenever you want.

For me anyway, it was quite surprisingly freeing to realize that there's no reason that the name on my birth certificate has to have anything to do with the name I choose to present to people.

Re: Users protest over 'creepy' Facebook update (2006)

#30

Post by karatestomp »

johnchristopher wrote: post #15
2sk21 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats exactly the problem with Facebook - no firewalls between the various personas of an individual.

I'd say that's not really the problem with Facebook (well it is but bear with me): long ago, at the end of the 90's, it was highly recommended to use pseudonyms on the Internet because `you never know who's who` and well.. it was right and we didn't know what the Internet could really do. When Facebook/Gmail happened and people were nudged to use their real names... because we need `real` connections. Well, that didn…

I always took at least part of Zuck's infamous "dumb fucks" comment to be prompted by people violating what were such basic rules of social Internet behavior at the time: do not post real, identifiable shit about yourself, do not use your real name, and so on. They were "dumb fucks" because they were, and were acting like, such Internet n00bs.

Now that stuff's normal, in large part thanks to Facebook, and it causes all kinds of problems.

Post reply on HN