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

Not Sharing Is Caring

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Not Sharing Is Caring

#41

Post by shuttlebrad »

arcs wrote: post #24
RussRomStanBety wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No Hanibash, you're missing the main point... If FB and their partners want users to share, why not approach the users and ask for permission first? What's the harm? The user will either accept the term or decline it. What we have here is blatant disregard for user security. Facebook is clearly saying that if you don't like it... you can dig around fb (or the partner site/s) and attempt to find the settings that cont…

You're quite right. This is why apps have a new permission dialog to show you exactly what gets shared, which you have to click accept prior to using it. As long as the app isn't facebook only, you can always use it without the facebook integration. and if it is, there will probably A facebook-free competitor you can use.

Well, the fiddly part so far seems to be that's set to a single level (announce/don't announce) and every different app needs its own mute button.

Spotify, for example, will happily announce to the world whatever you happen to be listening to, and there's no simple way to hit "mute". So you're going to need to build a separate "mute" button into every app, on every platform, and have enough trust that it will work ...

Re: Not Sharing Is Caring

#42

Post by shuttlebrad »

nostromo wrote: post #12
kwamenum86 wrote: post #10

I don't agree with everything the author says but I think I agree with the sentiment. I think frictionless sharing is a departure from how people express themselves in real life. During real world interactions we present our carefully tailored selves to the rest of the world. We don't tell everyone everything we are doing for a reason. One positive with reducing friction is that it might be easier to find common grou…

I've personally had this play out with a number of services. LastFM comes to mind. I really enjoyed having a persistent record of what I listened to for my own use and for finding new music. However, I stopped using the service because, honestly, I'm not exactly proud of every song that makes it to my most-played list. LastFM let's you remove a song from your profile if I remember correctly, but it was easier to not…

The "so-and-so read site X" thing will make this really transparent to people, really quickly. Its creepy how much "Friend X has read article Y on the Guardian" is happening.

Re: Not Sharing Is Caring

#43

Post by ay »

nostromo wrote: post #12
kwamenum86 wrote: post #10

I don't agree with everything the author says but I think I agree with the sentiment. I think frictionless sharing is a departure from how people express themselves in real life. During real world interactions we present our carefully tailored selves to the rest of the world. We don't tell everyone everything we are doing for a reason. One positive with reducing friction is that it might be easier to find common grou…

I've personally had this play out with a number of services. LastFM comes to mind. I really enjoyed having a persistent record of what I listened to for my own use and for finding new music. However, I stopped using the service because, honestly, I'm not exactly proud of every song that makes it to my most-played list. LastFM let's you remove a song from your profile if I remember correctly, but it was easier to not…

"I'm not exactly proud of every song that makes it to my most-played list."

It would be very interesting for me if you might write up a few lines on "why", if you can.

Re: Not Sharing Is Caring

#44

Post by saturdaysaint »

shuttlebrad wrote: post #41
arcs wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're quite right. This is why apps have a new permission dialog to show you exactly what gets shared, which you have to click accept prior to using it. As long as the app isn't facebook only, you can always use it without the facebook integration. and if it is, there will probably A facebook-free competitor you can use.

Well, the fiddly part so far seems to be that's set to a single level (announce/don't announce) and every different app needs its own mute button. Spotify, for example, will happily announce to the world whatever you happen to be listening to, and there's no simple way to hit "mute". So you're going to need to build a separate "mute" button into every app, on every platform, and have enough trust that it will work ..…

You can easily shut down any kind of activity. I clicked on the settings for an Rdio song I auto-posted and the option of "Don't show this kind of activity from Rdio" (paraphrasing) showed up.

I hate to single you out, but the amount of blatantly unresearched, inaccurate statements in this discussion is really disappointing. This is a powerful, well-implemented (easy to opt-in/opt-out of any broadcasting on an app by app basis) feature.

Re: Not Sharing Is Caring

#45

Post by hessenwolf »

nostromo wrote: post #12
kwamenum86 wrote: post #10

I don't agree with everything the author says but I think I agree with the sentiment. I think frictionless sharing is a departure from how people express themselves in real life. During real world interactions we present our carefully tailored selves to the rest of the world. We don't tell everyone everything we are doing for a reason. One positive with reducing friction is that it might be easier to find common grou…

I've personally had this play out with a number of services. LastFM comes to mind. I really enjoyed having a persistent record of what I listened to for my own use and for finding new music. However, I stopped using the service because, honestly, I'm not exactly proud of every song that makes it to my most-played list. LastFM let's you remove a song from your profile if I remember correctly, but it was easier to not…

Hold on, can you expand on that? I am reading that you are suggesting that facebook would just make public your (like-enabled) entire web history, whether you clicked like or not.

Re: Not Sharing Is Caring

#46

Post by ams6110 »

hanibash wrote: post #5

The author is completely missing the point. Implicit sharing allows for everything to go into the graph in a structured way. This is the most important aspect of implicit sharing and the new Open Graph. This doesn't mean that you're going to get inundated with meaningless shares. That would be a horrible user experience. In fact, Facebook put a lot of time and effort into making sure that is exactly what didn't happe…

That's cool if you need an app to help you figure out how you are like or different from your friends, I guess. For me, it's just confirmation that Facebook offers nothing I want, and I'm glad I never created an account there.

Re: Not Sharing Is Caring

#47

Post by fauigerzigerk »

shabble wrote: post #31

I'm going to drag out another cstross quote (from Accelerando [1]): "[...] his suitcase is on its way to Mombasa, where it will probably be pithed and resurrected in the service of some African cyber-Fagin. That's okay by Manfred — it only contains a statistically normal mixture of second hand clothes and toiletries, and he only carries it to convince the airline passenger-profiling expert systems that he isn't some…

That would be terrible but I blieve it's one of those "what if everyone did x?" situations. The people who refuse to be tracked voluntarily will always be a large enough group for that kind of profiling to be ineffective.

The friend spam fad will recede eventually and become one of those iconic crazy things from the past that everyone shakes their head about. Kind of like the shoe fitting x-ray device: http://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/shoexray.htm

Re: Not Sharing Is Caring

#48

Post by ddw »

pygorex wrote: post #8

Frictionless sharing without proper curation could kill Facebook. Friction naturally encourages the crowd-sourcing of curation - by having to click a share button or fill out a simple form I'm forced to think about what I'm sharing and the context to present it in. Knowing what songs my friends are listening to right at this moment isn't very useful information. Having a friend reminisce on their wall or tweet about…

> Knowing what songs my friends are listening to right at this moment isn't very useful information.

It's even more useless when it's from six hours ago. I just checked FB this morning to see the news that a friend listened to a certain album last night. I'll make sure to block that so it never comes up again.

Re: Not Sharing Is Caring

#49

Post by ddw »

resnamen wrote: post #19

I worry about the extreme fan-out that goes between content producers, datacenters packed with algorithms and content mills packed with hacks, dedicated to rewriting and excerpting that content, and then all these sharing mechanisms broadcasting this massaged crap out to the world. Is the Internet getting better from all this? What is the ratio of thought invested in producing quality content, versus thought invested…

I'm with you. It doesn't seem like people are becoming smarter, not that that's the purpose of Facebook. We're just blurting out interests.

It's like Facebook is testing the limits of human values of sharing ourselves and the things we like. Will we bend to the algorithms or will they bend to us?

Re: Not Sharing Is Caring

#50

Post by equalarrow »

resnamen wrote: post #19

I worry about the extreme fan-out that goes between content producers, datacenters packed with algorithms and content mills packed with hacks, dedicated to rewriting and excerpting that content, and then all these sharing mechanisms broadcasting this massaged crap out to the world. Is the Internet getting better from all this? What is the ratio of thought invested in producing quality content, versus thought invested…

This is true and thanks for the rant. :)

Marco.org just had a post (http://www.marco.org/2011/09/23/business-insider) about how biz insider slices and dices his stories for their benefit. (After reading and thinking about his post, I removed BI from my morning reading list).

Honestly, I don't see this getting any better - and I'm usually an optimist. I think FB will make more of these deals with partners and we'll get more and more of the reactionary media type broadcast. All bites of info, very little substance; ADD to the extreme.

I'm in the middle of the argument that FB is bad and FB is here to stay get over it and assimilate. I developed a few FB apps in 09-10 and at first I thought it was awesome. The last app I did asked for a bunch of permissions because we needed access to someone's feed so we could create/read posts that were specific to our app. That was all good, but then I would look at the logs in our server for the feed updated callback and not only would it never stop (was kinda amazing to watch this), but we had access to all these people's feeds - like everything.

I have to think this is typical now and I know most of my relatives (young and old) grant this type of access and don't really understand what it means. In my mind, they clearly do not grep what is possible. And why should they? They're not programmers, they're just regular people.

This coupled with the FB copyright rules pushed me off the platform. My girlfriend still uses it (too much imo), my family uses it, and I still have my profile on there, but I'm not adding any more content. I think at this point it's more important to me - even as a programmer - to live life and create my own things. That's the only counterpoint I can see to a world where it's garbage in, garbage out.

Post reply on HN