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

FWD:Everyone

fwdeveryone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 143 posts

Re: FWD:Everyone

#101

Post by Spivak »

crummy wrote: post #69
occamrazor wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does that mean I'm not allowed to forward emails you send me?

Nobody is going to be able to give you a definitive answer because it hasn't been tested in the US in the context of copyright or in the EU under the GPDR.

My guess is that forwarding would be fine but publishing wouldn't (in the US) and that you as an end user don't have to worry about the GPDR.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#102

Post by cryptonector »

2ion wrote: post #81

> * Less work than blogging, way more benefits > > * Build a community around your inbox > > * Only share the emails you intend to It's just a fancy mailing list then? Minus the SMTP leg, plus privacy/consent issues and moving to a non-free storage format as well as concentrating the presence of the "thread" at one site. The best email lore out there is saved to mailing list archives and can be linked to and shared j…

Might as well build a tool to blogify mailing list archives. If the list is private you can always publish the blog-form summary if you have the authority to do it. But there's no way to monetize that -- you have to provide much more than that, and centralize things in the process, in order to monetize.

For corporate customers who want to publish into an org, rather than the world, this service might actually be very valuable. For non-corporate uses this might make some sense, but for me... I'd not let a third party read my email.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#103

Post by Spivak »

oblio wrote: post #75
jonathankoren wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - You can now anonymize any message contributor. [...] > - 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…

> If you want to get legal about it, as the author, the copyright is mine, not the person I send it to. Are you sure about this? I doubt that communication can be copyrighted. Once you sent me your email, it's mine, not yours. Otherwise email forwarding in general is completely illegal.

Yes it can, emails that are more than a few words meet all the criteria for a copyright protection. So it's a case where not every email is copyrighted but almost all non-trivial ones are.

"Once you sent me your email, it's mine, not yours."

"Once you let me download Star Wars, it's mine, not yours."

Email forwarding in general isn't illegal. There are plenty of times where you could forward an email where there are no issues of copyright. Like an autogenerated notification for example, that email wouldn't be copyrighted at all. On the flip side if I send you a copy of my book in an email you certainly don't have the right to forward it as that would be an unauthorized reproduction. The question is generally where certain types of personal and professional communication fall.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#104

Post by yellowapple »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #100
yellowapple wrote: post #60

I'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.

Per Alex's comment on this post (and, in fact, the current top comment):

"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."

It requires opt-in from all parties now, but there's already a publicized plan to change that.

"And yes, it does violate basic expectations - that's on purpose."

I'm not sure how "don't worry guys, we're intentionally building a product to facilitate the wholesale violation of decades-old email etiquette and common courtesy" is supposed to make this idea sound any less horrific.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#105

Post by natdempk »

Alex3917 wrote: post #3

Thanks 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…

I’m really impressed by the email parsing success. How did you tackle the hellscape that is parsing replies out of emails?

Re: FWD:Everyone

#106

Post by amsheehan »

sbr464 wrote: post #17

This is a cool concept, have to think about all the good things I may have spread across years of random PST files or gmail accounts. Hopefully at least one in there!

One of the features we have is a naive suggestion engine. Upon signing up you can feed the app a list of keywords. These key words are used to surface relevant threads from your inbox.

You can see this in action in this video: https://youtu.be/MqbTUDCvYB8

Re: FWD:Everyone

#107

Post by amsheehan »

owens99 wrote: post #76
craftyguy wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sure hope they aren't. This is terrifying, from a privacy perspective.

True, but only because it is OAuth. I like the overall concept if I don't have to share access to my inbox. Better if it was via forwarding to a specific address.

We are actively working on a gmail add-on which would allow you to not give us access to your inbox, rather, publish single threads to the site through the gmail interface. We have a few tickets open with Google to narrow the scope of the permissions available to us for exactly that reason! :)

Re: FWD:Everyone

#108

Post by jenscow »

jeswin wrote: post #30

Sync 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.

I actually thought it was a joke.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#110

Post by amsheehan »

larkeith wrote: post #48
Alex3917 wrote: post #3

Thanks 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…

You're absolutely right! We'll get this up ASAP. Thanks for your interest in the site.
Post reply on HN