Live data from Hacker News

Google UX Researcher Explains the Social Networking Gay Bar Problem

slideshare.net

1–10 of 59 posts

Re: Google UX Researcher Explains the Social Networking Gay Bar Problem

#2
That's why I keep three separate social networks: one on facebook (friends), one on Twitter (colleagues and strangers) and one on LinkedIn (professional contacts).

It's hard to keep them separated though, especially since now I feed my twitter stream to the other two, seriously considering to remove the feed.

Re: Google UX Researcher Explains the Social Networking Gay Bar Problem

#3
This presentation is somewhat long, but extremely informative. If you're designing any sort of application or content that includes sharing or privacy, I'd consider it almost required reading. It's that informative - the best I've seen on the topic.

Re: Google UX Researcher Explains the Social Networking Gay Bar Problem

#5
Oh, it's the presentation I read 4 months ago.

Facebook Groups and Friends Lists are a step in the right direction but they haven't been implemented well in other aspects of Facebook.

If Google Me ever became a reality (and not in the limited "only existing product enhancements" fashion) this would be an interesting discussion. Facebook's model isn't friendly to the privacy oriented sharing schemes.

Re: Google UX Researcher Explains the Social Networking Gay Bar Problem

#6
>> If your privacy practices aren't transparent, then you introduce doubt. Doubt leads to lower usage.

So true. Too many apps and services don't understand that as users, when we see "Connect to Facebook/Twitter", our minds are immediately filled with doubt and mistrust. Why? Because we want control over what our friends see about us, and we suspect your app doesn't give a shit and will shamelessly promote itself at our expense. So be clear. If you're going to write on my wall, say you will. And if you're not, then say you won't. Don't leave me guessing.

Re: Google UX Researcher Explains the Social Networking Gay Bar Problem

#8
I really enjoyed this presentation.

Aside from all the interesting ways of defining privacy I never thought of before, the implications of the presenter's goal (making everyone happy to use social networking for almost all of their life) struck me the hardest.

Let's say some radical changes came about so that almost any reasonable person would feel free to post all their personal data on facebook, knowing that sensitive parts would be kept to specific groups. That still wouldn't take care of what I see as the biggest lurking concern; how our data will be handled in the future.

It's certainly paranoia, but we've all seen good companies turn to shit, and people have even seen stable countries turn bad. If a database of everyone's un-self-censored private data existed, it would have untold implications. Even now, it's staggering to think about. I don't know, I guess it's getting late and I'm sleepy. But I think about FB's extremely high valuation and wonder if something like that could be a seed of instability that would allow for decision makers from unknown vectors to influence how FB uses its data and stuff like that.

Post reply on HN