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

Facebook is Getting Orwellian. I Vote Ctrl-W.

blog.dogster.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 50 posts

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

#41

Post by indigoviolet »

iamdave wrote: post #39
indigoviolet wrote: post #36

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…

Re the second point:

IMO, Facebook isn't a finished product. The product changes in ways that are hopefully useful to the majority of users over time. It isn't always possible [and it isn't simple, and it adds complexity, and bugs, and it doesn't make sense] to maintain every feature that once existed -- the product would stagnate if we tried to do that.

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

#42

Post by iamdave »

indigoviolet wrote: post #41
iamdave wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Re the second point: IMO, Facebook isn't a finished product. The product changes in ways that are hopefully useful to the majority of users over time. It isn't always possible [and it isn't simple, and it adds complexity, and bugs, and it doesn't make sense] to maintain every feature that once existed -- the product would stagnate if we tried to do that.

The latter part of what you said is absolutely right. You can't continue to support old features and expect to thrive.

BUT what it seems that Facebook is lacking is a clear sense of direction when it comes to providing a platform that is accessible yet robust, interactive yet intuitive.

Your conjecture that the product changes in ways that are useful to the majority is a conjecture I refuse to buy because if you were to actually give your user base a chance, give them a voice and poll them, I'll bet my salary for the year 80% of them (techies and non-techies alike) will agree that Facebook has degraded to the point of being almost useless.

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

#43

Post by indigoviolet »

iamdave wrote: post #42
indigoviolet wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re the second point: IMO, Facebook isn't a finished product. The product changes in ways that are hopefully useful to the majority of users over time. It isn't always possible [and it isn't simple, and it adds complexity, and bugs, and it doesn't make sense] to maintain every feature that once existed -- the product would stagnate if we tried to do that.

The latter part of what you said is absolutely right. You can't continue to support old features and expect to thrive. BUT what it seems that Facebook is lacking is a clear sense of direction when it comes to providing a platform that is accessible yet robust, interactive yet intuitive. Your conjecture that the product changes in ways that are useful to the majority is a conjecture I refuse to buy because if you were…

It's an evolution, and we're figuring things out as we go. This isn't territory that anyone has ever explored in the past.

As for your bet, the obvious counterargument is that 400 million users still visit the site every month, and I haven't seen any signs that that graph is even slowing down. Isn't that a more convincing statement than a poll or a forum with very vocal techies?

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

#44

Post by iamdave »

indigoviolet wrote: post #40
iamdave wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Mr Violet, listen. I don't doubt that you have some talented people, in fact I've seen it. Facebook has done things no Social Networking site before it has done, but that's how technology works. MySpace was the king of it's day, doing things Friendster didn't do and Facebook is doing things MySpace didn't do.

You don't have to tell me that the engineers and designers are smart and talented, however I need to make a rebuttal here.

(a) I have no idea what the problems Facebook are [trying] to solve. As far as I, as a user am concerned they haven't solved anything. They created problems when the design committee decided they will "test" a new iteration of how Facebook looks and operates every winter solstice. That is an issue for me because not only do I have to figure out where something I, and other users use on a daily basis, I now have to sit through another (n)weeks of users complaining about it because they don't have the technical fortitude to learn new technology.

That should be a wakeup call to Facebook. Not all users are made equal, not everyone can look at a UI and make an educated guess what elements to click in order to upload a new image. That is what prompted my comment that "any UI engineer worth his paycheck" should understand how vital it is not to assume users know everything.

Yet that is exactly what is crippling Facebook right now. By not assuming your users can do the things your development staff does, you've taken it too far and assumed they need to be guided by the hand and told what they want and what's best for them. The downvotes will come in two fold for me making this comment, but you're acting a lot like Apple is acting when it comes to the AppStore. Apple constantly gets frustrated blog posts from well meaning developers who have their applications rejected because it's not best for the user.

Let the user decide that.

Secondly.

(b) I dream for the day when technology plays as much a role role in developing social capital that money does, and I think it's great that Facebook came along and started doing things that really got people's heads to turn. The opportunity to be in the arena to participate in the endeavor to bring a technological approach to the development and longevity of social capital is an opportunity I would rarely turn down.

But if it's all the same, and no offense to you sir, I would never in my life work a day for Facebook.

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

#45

Post by iamdave »

indigoviolet wrote: post #43
iamdave wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latter part of what you said is absolutely right. You can't continue to support old features and expect to thrive. BUT what it seems that Facebook is lacking is a clear sense of direction when it comes to providing a platform that is accessible yet robust, interactive yet intuitive. Your conjecture that the product changes in ways that are useful to the majority is a conjecture I refuse to buy because if you were…

It's an evolution, and we're figuring things out as we go. This isn't territory that anyone has ever explored in the past. As for your bet, the obvious counterargument is that 400 million users still visit the site every month, and I haven't seen any signs that that graph is even slowing down. Isn't that a more convincing statement than a poll or a forum with very vocal techies?

No.

Convincing is when you're able to build a platform and assimilate naturally evolving elements of what makes that platform great, and the community that exists on top of that platform to enhance the experience.

Interestingly enough: your prime competitor has done this exceptionally well.

Do you know who I'm talking about? Of course you do. I'm talking about Twitter. In fact, they've done it one hundred times better than your employer has.

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

#46

Post by [deleted] »

iamdave wrote: post #44
indigoviolet wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Mr Violet, listen. I don't doubt that you have some talented people, in fact I've seen it. Facebook has done things no Social Networking site before it has done, but that's how technology works. MySpace was the king of it's day, doing things Friendster didn't do and Facebook is doing things MySpace didn't do. You don't have to tell me that the engineers and designers are smart and talented, however I need to make a r…

[deleted]

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

#47

Post by Husafan »

indigoviolet wrote: post #32
Husafan wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you're telling me that it is (prohibitively) difficult to maintain a couple of free-form text areas where users can list interests, past jobs, etc. for their FRIENDS to see without linking to public pages? I know this isn't beyond Facebook's engineering or infrastructure and it stinks of agenda, not evolution.

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

#48

Post by p858snake »

pak wrote: post #11
p858snake wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK^^ interests on new profiles are set as "Friends Only" by defaults and that was one of the defaults on the previous privacy rollout for pre-existing users after the cry out. All this does is change how the interests actually link (They used to be linked to a search field seeing who else had that text, Now they link to pre-formatted fan pages which still show who else like it but with descriptions from Wikipedia.…

Don't you love that you need a second FB account to check whether your privacy settings are actually in effect? It's indicative of how difficult it is to understand the privacy settings that are offered. Part of the reason Facebook is able to get away with so much of this is that when you are logged into Facebook, it never occurs to you how much of your information is being shown to other people; it's like a crowd of…

No, my second account is for something else (that started as a joke), It just proves to be a useful testbed for these things.

And they do provide methods of seeing what is available to friends (But that only works well if you have lists and stuff setup)

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

#50

Post by greyfade »

indigoviolet wrote: post #20
sgman wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not add an option to not make the pages public on that modal dialog? I can do it in the settings after all..

No, Page connections are public. I don't think you can change that under Privacy settings -- you can not display them on your Profile if you so choose. The dialog took the conservative option of warning you that things were becoming public, rather than adding a potentially confusing "hide Pages" option on the dialog.

I find this distateful.

There's no Earthly reason to make those connections public except to expose personally-identifying information that the individual may not want to have exposed. This, to me, is a nightmare of Orwellian proportions.

Take my advice: pull the plug.

Post reply on HN