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

31–40 of 43 posts

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

#31

Post by usrusr »

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…

Same here, Facebook's belief that maximising public interaction would be good for their product is basically killing it for me. It's not even just controversial content like politics or nsfw stuff, it begins with banalities like I know that various loved ones would be annoyed if I filled their timelines with geekery over a hobby they don't share or internet banter like this.

I'm not particularly pro or anti Facebook, but my engagement with the platform is severely curtailed by the need for self-censoring due to their public first mentality. Essentially I learned to treat everything with that tiny globe symbol as read-only (and every closed audience potentially public, but that's a different story, more about self-preservation than about courtesy).

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

#32

Post by chrisseaton »

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…

> showing my friends what I click like on if it's a public post

Why did you publicly like a post if you didn’t want people to see that?

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

#33

Post by aklemm »

antihero wrote: post #4
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…

My word, I remember years back when I didn't realise that this was a thing, and it took my mate showing me his feed filled with me liking a whole load of random sexy filth pages. I remember commenting wondering if my mum could see all the shit I'd liked, to which she responded "yep.". Absolutely mortified mate.

Who did you think the likes were being shown to?

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

#35

Post by thedanbob »

kibwen wrote: post #28
johnchristopher wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, i…

Huh, I guess I already do this in a small way: I'm "Dan" socially and "Daniel" for anything that requires my signature. I don't think I'd be brave enough to take it further though. Most systems/companies/govt agencies are flexible enough that it doesn't matter if I put the wrong one down, but making a mistake with two completely different names could be problematic.

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

#36

Post by mckeed »

aklemm wrote: post #33
antihero wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My word, I remember years back when I didn't realise that this was a thing, and it took my mate showing me his feed filled with me liking a whole load of random sexy filth pages. I remember commenting wondering if my mum could see all the shit I'd liked, to which she responded "yep.". Absolutely mortified mate.

Who did you think the likes were being shown to?

The poster. It used to be that shares/retweets were used to put a post on your friends feed and likes were used to express support/appreciation to the poster/creator.

Twitter always had the problem where faves (now likes) were public but people didn't always realize – they were used as a combo of bookmarks and upvotes. But even then, there was a difference between having your likes viewable on your profile and when they started randomly showing your likes on followers' feeds.

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

#37

Post by nostromo »

antihero wrote: post #4
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…

My word, I remember years back when I didn't realise that this was a thing, and it took my mate showing me his feed filled with me liking a whole load of random sexy filth pages. I remember commenting wondering if my mum could see all the shit I'd liked, to which she responded "yep.". Absolutely mortified mate.

For a long time you could see a friends like history on Instagram.

When you told friends that, a fair number of them would look like, “oh fuck.”

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

#38

Post by kibwen »

thedanbob wrote: post #35
kibwen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, i…

Huh, I guess I already do this in a small way: I'm "Dan" socially and "Daniel" for anything that requires my signature. I don't think I'd be brave enough to take it further though. Most systems/companies/govt agencies are flexible enough that it doesn't matter if I put the wrong one down, but making a mistake with two completely different names could be problematic.

Yes, when providing your name to an entity it takes manual consideration to decide whether or not that entity has any good reason to try to associate you with the name the government knows you by (your legal name). I'd give my legal name when setting up a bank account, but not when setting up a Facebook or Twitter account (who might ask for legal ID, but then I don't need those accounts anyway).

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

#39

Post by grawprog »

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…

The idea of a like feature on a platform that's supposed to be for you, your friends and family is kind of fucked in general. Likes, contrarily enough, encourage you to not give a fuck. Why bother responding to your friends or family when you can just click like, give them acknowledgment and move on to the next thing. It's bad enough on random internet forums, but if it's your friends and family you should put the effort in to actually respond to something if you actually care, otherwise don't. I think the discourse and posts on Facebook would be radically different without the like feature.
Post reply on HN