Live data from Hacker News

Facebook is Getting Orwellian. I Vote Ctrl-W.

blog.dogster.com

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: Facebook is Getting Orwellian. I Vote Ctrl-W.

#31

What this article doesn't really clarify is that the author kept picking "Ask me later" in the dialog for the suggestions. It doesn't really make sense for Facebook to just keep letting you "snooze" that transition [keeping all data in two formats, maintaining two Profile formats, more headaches] -- which is why, the fifth time or so you see the dialog, it wants you to make a decision. [I work for Facebook. My opinio…

What if my choice was to ignore your so-called forced choices and I click the back button instead? What impact does this have on my privacy?

Re: Facebook is Getting Orwellian. I Vote Ctrl-W.

#32
post #22

What this article doesn't really clarify is that the author kept picking "Ask me later" in the dialog for the suggestions. It doesn't really make sense for Facebook to just keep letting you "snooze" that transition [keeping all data in two formats, maintaining two Profile formats, more headaches] -- which is why, the fifth time or so you see the dialog, it wants you to make a decision. [I work for Facebook. My opinio…

But you're not giving him a choice.. Why, after putting it off "too many," times, does it not give the choice to NOT link and not be asked anymore?

Software evolves. No piece of software can afford to support every option and be backward compatible forever.

Re: Facebook is Getting Orwellian. I Vote Ctrl-W.

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that sentence does seek to inform users that their new Page connections are public -- especially those you take the time to read the dialog. However, in the last few days I've run across many Facebook users who chose to make these public connections when previously they had their interests and likes private. I suspect most of them clicked through the dialog without reading it or fully understanding the ramificat…

I don't understand how it is unethical at all. It is very clearly mentioned, in less than two lines of text, with detailed explanations one click away. What do you suggest instead?

In my personal opinion, I argue that the effort to make before-private settings now-public with user confirmation is the "unethical" part, not necessarily the implementation. I will cede a point here: calling it unethical may be a little bit too strong. But I definitely do not agree with the decision, for the following reason:

Knowing that a design change will cause a certain percentage of the user base to expose their personal information (which retroactively they did not wish to make public) while providing little added benefit to the end user is what bothers me.

Facebook is known for its perseverance in the face of user complaints, which I can respect. I thoroughly agree that at times user complaints and petitions (such as those against the various site redesigns) are unfounded, as there is a clear greater good. I do not see the greater good of the new public-pages push, and thus, do not respect the effort to push user information into a more public space.

If you could point out benefits users receive by making more of their information public, perhaps I could be convinced.

[edited for spelling]

Re: Facebook is Getting Orwellian. I Vote Ctrl-W.

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that sentence does seek to inform users that their new Page connections are public -- especially those you take the time to read the dialog. However, in the last few days I've run across many Facebook users who chose to make these public connections when previously they had their interests and likes private. I suspect most of them clicked through the dialog without reading it or fully understanding the ramificat…

I don't understand how it is unethical at all. It is very clearly mentioned, in less than two lines of text, with detailed explanations one click away. What do you suggest instead?

Any UI engineer worth his paycheck should know how users feel about dialog boxes that aren't manually triggered. They get in the way, users want to bypass them however possible, and they'll click wildly just to get to the other side of the fence.

It's not "unethical" in the strictest since of the word, but I'm sure you'll have a very hard time telling me it isn't an underhanded tactic just to make the user do what you want.

Re: Facebook is Getting Orwellian. I Vote Ctrl-W.

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how it is unethical at all. It is very clearly mentioned, in less than two lines of text, with detailed explanations one click away. What do you suggest instead?

In my personal opinion, I argue that the effort to make before-private settings now-public with user confirmation is the "unethical" part, not necessarily the implementation. I will cede a point here: calling it unethical may be a little bit too strong. But I definitely do not agree with the decision, for the following reason: Knowing that a design change will cause a certain percentage of the user base to expose the…

IMO, the benefits are from having your interests represented in a structured format. For example, you can now go to Pandora, and Pandora knows what music you like [and what music your friends like]. You can start actually building up an identity and using it across the web. There are tons of possibilities for features useful to users that come from having a structured list of what you like and don't like. Hopefully you'll see Facebook make good on the promise to give you more useful things based on the structured information in the near future.

The privacy changes are a side effect of having these be connections instead of free text. Keep in mind the number of connections that an average user makes (all the Likes they attach to Pages, to Open Graph objects, friend connections) - would you have a Privacy control per connection? It's already not an easy task to keep the privacy controls so the average user can understand and use them correctly [and we can always improve this] -- just imagine the complexity we'd add to the system. What exists instead is the ability for you to control the visibility of all these connections on your own Profile. "Public" means that your association with these objects may appear elsewhere [for example, a friend may reveal that you're friends with them, or a Page may reveal you Like that Page.]. I think this is a decent balance between giving the user what they want primarily (to control whether visitors to their Profile see that they are connected to something), and managing overall complexity.

[Edit: this is my opinion, I perhaps don't know enough about the privacy decisions to represent them completely. ]

Re: Facebook is Getting Orwellian. I Vote Ctrl-W.

#36
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how it is unethical at all. It is very clearly mentioned, in less than two lines of text, with detailed explanations one click away. What do you suggest instead?

Any UI engineer worth his paycheck should know how users feel about dialog boxes that aren't manually triggered. They get in the way, users want to bypass them however possible, and they'll click wildly just to get to the other side of the fence. It's not "unethical" in the strictest since of the word, but I'm sure you'll have a very hard time telling me it isn't an underhanded tactic just to make the user do what yo…

What would you suggest instead?

Re: Facebook is Getting Orwellian. I Vote Ctrl-W.

#37
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't warned. I scanned the dialogue page to see if there was any information, but couldn't find anything. I definitely could have missed a text block if it were either at the very top or bottom of the page and of normal font-size. But I certainly didn't see anything like, 'WARNING! By not linking to these items they will be removed from your profile. Are you sure you want to continue?', which is something I usual…

You'd have seen something like the image on this link: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_high_pressure...

Nope, I didn't see that. I wonder if it was because I left a few items that I knew would not be publishing to my stream (such as 'city'). Perhaps that box only popped up if a user unchecks every single item in each field?

Re: Facebook is Getting Orwellian. I Vote Ctrl-W.

#38
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd have seen something like the image on this link: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_high_pressure...

Nope, I didn't see that. I wonder if it was because I left a few items that I knew would not be publishing to my stream (such as 'city'). Perhaps that box only popped up if a user unchecks every single item in each field?

Yes, I believe so. That is a fair point, I'll give that feedback to the people concerned.

Re: Facebook is Getting Orwellian. I Vote Ctrl-W.

#39
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any UI engineer worth his paycheck should know how users feel about dialog boxes that aren't manually triggered. They get in the way, users want to bypass them however possible, and they'll click wildly just to get to the other side of the fence. It's not "unethical" in the strictest since of the word, but I'm sure you'll have a very hard time telling me it isn't an underhanded tactic just to make the user do what yo…

What would you suggest instead?

What would I suggest? I would suggest hiring UI engineers who actually perform A/B testing before rolling out another design iteration before users can even get used to them, and then I would apply those same principles of testing to things like this.

Secondly, I would give users better options what you're giving them right now. Letting FB do Link data automatically, or letting the user do it him/herself is a false choice if the user doesn't want to participate at all. The means lead to the same end, and the user is coerced into making a choice one way or another.

Thirdly: I would do a MUCH better job of designing these dialog boxes to inform users of what's about to happen. As it stands, users are simply going to think their data is simply getting reformatted, when that is not the case at all.

That's what I suggest, but honestly given the track record of Facebook actually listening to their user base, I honestly don't think any of what I said matters. Given that "what do you suggest" has been your retort on another comment very similar to mine.

Let me remind you, by the way-before you make an attempt to inform me otherwise about the 'opt-out' choice-, users are not left with much solace if they don't want their profiles linked to public places.

If you don’t want to connect to any Pages, the corresponding sections on your Profile will be empty. Connecting to Pages will now be the main way to express yourself on your profile, and you can always edit your profile to remove specific suggested Pages that you don't want to connect to.

This comes from your own FAQ on Facebook.com. What you're in essence saying, is that the only way users can tell their friends about where they've worked, where they've gone to school, what they are interested in, is to subject themselves to the public atmosphere that is Facebook Pages 2.0.

No. Absolutely not. I'm not buying that at all.

Re: Facebook is Getting Orwellian. I Vote Ctrl-W.

#40
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you suggest instead?

What would I suggest? I would suggest hiring UI engineers who actually perform A/B testing before rolling out another design iteration before users can even get used to them, and then I would apply those same principles of testing to things like this. Secondly, I would give users better options what you're giving them right now. Letting FB do Link data automatically, or letting the user do it him/herself is a false c…

It was an honest question, in the comment you responded to. You didn't actually include any suggestions, so I was curious.

All I can say in response to your answers is that Facebook engineers and designers are some of the smartest people I know.

I tend to think that if you're unsatisfied with what they're producing, (and assuming you're willing to accept that malice isn't the reason) then either

(a) the problems they're solving are really hard and you're underestimating these problems or

(b) you're much smarter than them - perhaps you can help us do a better job [drop me a line].

Post reply on HN