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

Facebook Blames Email Problems On User "Confusion"

readwriteweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 158 posts

Re: Facebook Blames Email Problems On User "Confusion"

#111

Post by wodemaye__ »

Silhouette wrote: post #106
malandrew wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main thing Facebook provides that isn't addressable with the systems we'd be left with in a "rollback" is a universal way to stay linked to other people that provides both people with control over whether that link exists or not. Everything else is just features glommed on top of that basic feature. AFAICT there are only two ways to provide that basic feature: (!) A centralized service like Facebook that manages…

I am still trying to work out why something approximating (2) can't be done through a simple combination of: - tried-and-tested public key cryptography techniques - using e-mail as a buffered delivery mechanism (everyone has an e-mail account that can store plenty of messages until they're next on-line) - borrowing the typical DVCS copy-the-whole-repo approach so you've got distributed back-ups - writing a native cli…

Hi, I'm actually in the process of designing such a system, with the goal of maximizing privacy, sovereignty, decentralization, and overall empowerment (not to mention destroying the facebook spying machine). If you'd like to help out with ideas and brainstorming, please do email me at bash.vcs [squigllydoo [SHIFT+TWO]] . com. I already have some ideas for unique features that will set this apart from other similarly oriented efforts in a significant way. I'm getting close to starting up a mailing list and code repository, so please be in touch if you're at all interested. I'll keep you filled in.

PS it will be completely F/OSS, most likely GPL depending on contributor consensus.

Re: Facebook Blames Email Problems On User "Confusion"

#112

Post by juanojeda »

pork wrote: post #105
wahsd wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, when people start waking up they will realize that it isn't, hasn't ever, and will never work. Facebook only functions on one core input; your demographic info. I would bet significant amounts of money that Facebook has permanently backed up everyone's demographic info for all eternity. It is the vulnerable point in the Facebook deathstar. No one already looks at or intentionally clicks on any adds on Facebook, i…

The thing about permanently backed up demographic info though: it changes. My age, for example, changes every year. My location changes every few years. My interests change. Hell, even gender changes.

All of those things are fairly trivial for FB to track. Age (obvious), Location (trackable through Places, geolocation, etc. through that thing in your pocket), Gender (presumably you would post a status update about something that big?), Employment (status, amassing colleagues as 'friends'?). It seems like they've hit on a constantly self-updating demographic info machine...

Re: Facebook Blames Email Problems On User "Confusion"

#113

Post by gnaritas »

Jach wrote: post #92
gnaritas wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Replace the "friends" in his original post with "acquaintances," and his point stands. That's changing the argument, those words mean totally different things. My point is, Facebook makes keeping in touch with acquaintances easy, but isn't necessary to keep in touch with actual friends. Friends are people you see outside of Facebook.

For less introverted people, "friend" and "acquaintance" are more-or-less synonymous. See why Facebook chose the word "friend" now? (I agree with your assessment of course, I consider them very different. My best friend doesn't even have Facebook, I only succumbed a few months ago...)

> For less introverted people, "friend" and "acquaintance" are more-or-less synonymous.

Ask any of those less introverted people to name someone who's an acquaintance but not a friend, I bet they come up with a name showing that when pressed, they can make the distinction and do have different meanings for those words.

I do not believe there are people who cannot make that distinction.

Re: Facebook Blames Email Problems On User "Confusion"

#114

Post by wodemaye__ »

malandrew wrote: post #70
betterth wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was this simple than Facebook would never have caught on in the first place. The answer isn't "rollback" because clearly there is some value here. The answer is finding out how to maximize that value to our lives, not maximize the payout for investors.

The main thing Facebook provides that isn't addressable with the systems we'd be left with in a "rollback" is a universal way to stay linked to other people that provides both people with control over whether that link exists or not. Everything else is just features glommed on top of that basic feature. AFAICT there are only two ways to provide that basic feature: (!) A centralized service like Facebook that manages…

Hi, I'm actually in the process of designing such a system, with the goal of maximizing privacy, sovereignty, decentralization, and overall empowerment (not to mention destroying the facebook spying machine). If you'd like to help out with ideas and brainstorming, please do email me at bash.vcs [squigllydoo [SHIFT+TWO]] . com. I already have some ideas for unique features that will set this apart from other similarly oriented efforts in a significant way. I'm getting close to starting up a mailing list and code repository, so please be in touch if you're at all interested. I'll keep you filled in.

But yeah, you've hit the nail right on the head. Obviously, my will fall into your (2) category, so we've got some major usability and cryptographic hurdles to tackle. But please rest assured that the solutions exist and that I've got most of them hammered out in my mind - the rest just require a little brainstorming and puzzle solving.

PS it will be completely F/OSS, most likely GPL depending on contributor consensus.

Re: Facebook Blames Email Problems On User "Confusion"

#115

Post by gnaritas »

joeblubaugh wrote: post #96
gnaritas wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You do when you're keeping in touch with friends you've made throughout your life and not just your current ones. Your friends are the current ones. Those other people aren't friends anymore, they're acquaintances, people you used to know but don't see anymore. Friend isn't a permanent status, it's the people you hang out with and see on a regular basis. If your only contact with a person is through facebook, they…

You know what? You don't get to decide who people's friends are. 30 years ago people had all kinds of friends they only got to communicate with on the phone and through letters. Non-face-to-face friendships (and romantic relationships) have existed since we had semi-reliable postal services. People happen to find things like Twitter & Facebook really helpful in this regard.

I'm not telling anyone who their friends are, I'm telling you you're using the English language sloppily if everyone in your Facebook you really consider a "friend". You've devalued the word to nearly meaninglessness. Everyone you've ever met is not your friend. Everyone you've had a friendly conversation with and looked up on Facebook is not your friend.

Re: Facebook Blames Email Problems On User "Confusion"

#116

Post by Ralith »

wodemaye__ wrote: post #114
malandrew wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main thing Facebook provides that isn't addressable with the systems we'd be left with in a "rollback" is a universal way to stay linked to other people that provides both people with control over whether that link exists or not. Everything else is just features glommed on top of that basic feature. AFAICT there are only two ways to provide that basic feature: (!) A centralized service like Facebook that manages…

Hi, I'm actually in the process of designing such a system, with the goal of maximizing privacy, sovereignty, decentralization, and overall empowerment (not to mention destroying the facebook spying machine). If you'd like to help out with ideas and brainstorming, please do email me at bash.vcs [squigllydoo [SHIFT+TWO]] . com. I already have some ideas for unique features that will set this apart from other similarly…

Why will you succeed where so many others have failed?

Re: Facebook Blames Email Problems On User "Confusion"

#117

Post by damncabbage »

jmathai wrote: post #72
Splines wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook needs to dogfood their own stuff. I remember reading about how they use IRC internally. Very cool, but it makes you wonder why they don't use facebook messages for everything.

Yahoo didn't even use Yahoo! Mail which is much much much better than Facebook Messages. It was mainly because a lot of people were comfortable with Exchange and the Calendar integration. They tried Zimbra without success. At least they use Yahoo! Messenger internally.

During my time there a lot of the Engineers used Google Search, and a local Jabber install for IM because Y! Messenger was that ad-filled and painful to use.

(Maybe my experience was limited to a pocket within Yahoo!)

Re: Facebook Blames Email Problems On User "Confusion"

#118

Post by abduhl »

gnaritas wrote: post #115
joeblubaugh wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what? You don't get to decide who people's friends are. 30 years ago people had all kinds of friends they only got to communicate with on the phone and through letters. Non-face-to-face friendships (and romantic relationships) have existed since we had semi-reliable postal services. People happen to find things like Twitter & Facebook really helpful in this regard.

I'm not telling anyone who their friends are, I'm telling you you're using the English language sloppily if everyone in your Facebook you really consider a "friend". You've devalued the word to nearly meaninglessness. Everyone you've ever met is not your friend. Everyone you've had a friendly conversation with and looked up on Facebook is not your friend.

This is a ridiculous argument. There are plenty of people I see every day that I would consider, at best, an acquaintance. There is also a very small group of people that I see maybe once or twice a year that I would consider friends.

Your definition of friendship is outrageously shallow and is contrary to any other definition I have heard.

Re: Facebook Blames Email Problems On User "Confusion"

#119

Post by gnaritas »

abduhl wrote: post #118
gnaritas wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not telling anyone who their friends are, I'm telling you you're using the English language sloppily if everyone in your Facebook you really consider a "friend". You've devalued the word to nearly meaninglessness. Everyone you've ever met is not your friend. Everyone you've had a friendly conversation with and looked up on Facebook is not your friend.

This is a ridiculous argument. There are plenty of people I see every day that I would consider, at best, an acquaintance. There is also a very small group of people that I see maybe once or twice a year that I would consider friends. Your definition of friendship is outrageously shallow and is contrary to any other definition I have heard.

> There are plenty of people I see every day that I would consider, at best, an acquaintance.

Ditto, where did I say seeing someone every day made them a friend? If it's this "it's the people you hang out with and see on a regular basis" that wasn't meant to qualify everyone you see daily as a friend.

> There is also a very small group of people that I see maybe once or twice a year that I would consider friends.

But you see them, which is my point. If your only contact with them is on Facebook, and losing Facebook would end your contact with them; they aren't your friends.

> Your definition of friendship is outrageously shallow and is contrary to any other definition I have heard.

I don't think you've understand what I'm saying well enough to say what my definition is since you've gotten it so clearly wrong.

Post reply on HN