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

Facebook forces all users over to Facebook.com e-mail addresses

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 208 posts

Re: Facebook forces all users over to Facebook.com e-mail addresses

#141

Post by eric-hu »

jfoutz wrote: post #30

Amusingly, facebook dropped 2 out of 3 test messages from the other address facebook knows about. Seriously, if anything should be whitelisted, it's that. I understand that they want to read my mail. They want to know who i interact with. Why make such a shitty mail client? No POP. no IMAP. Can't view headers. It's not clear how much html is allowed, because they're dropping to many messages. They're not even pretend…

On top of that, I tried to remove my new Facebook email address from my profile. I got the following error message:

  There was an error removing the email: xxxxxxx@facebook.com
Did I type the wrong password? Maybe that was supposed to be a capital letter. Oh, there's a different 'wrong password' email...

Re: Facebook forces all users over to Facebook.com e-mail addresses

#142

Post by arihant »

ThePherocity wrote: post #55
zerohp wrote: post #7

I don't think its overstating the situation to say: Facebook changes profiles without permission or notification.

True, but there is a fine line. You cannot reasonably move a product forward if a few select people refuse to play along. Every product I release, I'm met with disdain from users that don't want to change, and how it was perfect the way it was. And the next release with a different change, it's the same users complaining how the version that they're using now is perfect, why would I change things? People love to comp…

Although I disagree with the comment, why is this comment downvoted?

Aren't people allowed to voice opinions anymore? Specially when those opinions are shared with some post-IPO companies?

Re: Facebook forces all users over to Facebook.com e-mail addresses

#143

Post by parfe »

invisible wrote: post #137

The sad thing is that Facebook probably thought "Hidden from Timeline" was the appropriate setting since every opt-out thing they've done in the past has bit them in the ass. Now they do an opt-in for "Shown on Timeline" and they get bitched out. The only unfortunate thing is that you cannot see emails to which you should have access to that are not marked as "Shown on Timeline". Complain about bad UX, not a security…

No, they hid my previously viewable external email address and replaced it with their own.

Facebook literally tried to hijack communications intended for me.

Re: Facebook forces all users over to Facebook.com e-mail addresses

#145

Post by [deleted] »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #94
javajosh wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One big thing that had a real impact on me was removal of the social features in Google Reader. I'd also argue that removing the ubiquitous "subscribe to this site via RSS" icon in the location bar was also damaging. RSS readers are a boon to the open, eclectic web, and any action that reduces their use is damaging, in my opinion.

They did nothing to change the RSS portion of Google Reader, the rss icon is a Chrome issue and is easily solved with one of a dozen extensions. The feature they removed was "sharing" and that was really ancillary to Reader/rss anyway.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook forces all users over to Facebook.com e-mail addresses

#146

Post by chrisdroukas »

patrickaljord wrote: post #17
dexen wrote: post #15

Obligatory jwz quote: ``Zawinski's law of software envelopment'' Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can. (obviously Myspace did not read mail ;-)) [EDIT] In response to http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=patrickaljord below, Myspace introduced email service in mid-2009. Perhaps the above should read, ``(obviously Myspace did not r…

> (obviously Myspace did not read mail ;-)) Except that it can http://www.myspace.com/guide/mail

There has to be a corollary floating around about sufficient user bases.

Re: Facebook forces all users over to Facebook.com e-mail addresses

#147

Post by starship »

slig wrote: post #103
zhoutong wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and how about iMessage and FaceTime that require email addresses in contacts to work? And also the 3rd party sites that rely on Facebook OAuth API to identify users based on emails (they could use uids, but I'm sure some are still using email).

This completely blows away the "let's the users sign up using facebook, we store their email and if we ever decide to ditch the FB login, we can always email them a password reset"

I'd like to second the request that someone test this who is in a place where they can easily do so. Thanks in advance.

Re: Facebook forces all users over to Facebook.com e-mail addresses

#148

Post by javajosh »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #94
javajosh wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One big thing that had a real impact on me was removal of the social features in Google Reader. I'd also argue that removing the ubiquitous "subscribe to this site via RSS" icon in the location bar was also damaging. RSS readers are a boon to the open, eclectic web, and any action that reduces their use is damaging, in my opinion.

They did nothing to change the RSS portion of Google Reader, the rss icon is a Chrome issue and is easily solved with one of a dozen extensions. The feature they removed was "sharing" and that was really ancillary to Reader/rss anyway.

You are a troll.

Re: Facebook forces all users over to Facebook.com e-mail addresses

#149

Post by jokermatt999 »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #94
javajosh wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One big thing that had a real impact on me was removal of the social features in Google Reader. I'd also argue that removing the ubiquitous "subscribe to this site via RSS" icon in the location bar was also damaging. RSS readers are a boon to the open, eclectic web, and any action that reduces their use is damaging, in my opinion.

They did nothing to change the RSS portion of Google Reader, the rss icon is a Chrome issue and is easily solved with one of a dozen extensions. The feature they removed was "sharing" and that was really ancillary to Reader/rss anyway.

Except when they killed that feature, they killed a community of people sharing. I'm friends with the same people on G+, but we all share a lot less now. Why? So that Google could promote G+.
Post reply on HN