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

FWD:Everyone

fwdeveryone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 143 posts

Re: FWD:Everyone

#61

Post by mirimir »

Alex3917 wrote: post #55
mirimir wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, and so don't know how libel and slander apply to the deceased. I can imagine how estates might have claims. But ??? And even so, there are all the non-deceased correspondents. I had no clue that email protocols "implicitly grants the recipient a copyright". What are cites for that? Neither https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322 nor https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5598 includes "coptright" except in the "Copyright…

The protocols don’t talk about copyright explicitly, but they talk about replying and forwarding. Both of those behaviors are only legal if there is an implicit grant of copyright to the recipient.

Again, IANAL. But copying in replies seems readily distinguishable from forwarding and publication.

But anyway, sorry about taking this down the legality path. It is a cool service that you're providing. And I would never argue that you're legally responsible for what users do. I'm just concerned about the abuse potential.

Maybe you could enable publication without explicit authorization only when all correspondents were registered users. That would encourage users to get their contacts to register, increasing your userbase.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#62

Post by koyao »

So basically have Twitter expand its character limit and ask everyone to replace their emails with Twitter? How cool is that? :)

Re: FWD:Everyone

#63

Post by mirimir »

gaius wrote: post #59
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The default must be requiring explicit permission from all participants If you send me an e-mail, absent an NDA, I generally have permission to disclose it to third parties. If FWD:Everyone required permission from all participants, they would simply fall prey to FWD:Everyone2 who didn't.

If you send me an e-mail, absent an NDA, I generally have permission to disclose it to third parties While technically true, I remember the days when publishing private messages was considered heinously rude. We didn’t need disclaimers and contracts and legalese for everything, because people - even on the Internet - behaved like decent human beings.

Yeah, I remember that from Usenet and mail-list etiquette.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#64

Post by yellowapple »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #28
mirimir wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - Permission requests are becoming optional, at least for now. Previously we required permission for all non-anonymized message contributors, now there will be an option to publish stuff immediately and let people anonymize themselves later if they want. If this is excessively abused we'll re-evaluate this, but we've tried to build things to incentivize good judgment. This is horrible ! I mean, people can always be…

> The default must be requiring explicit permission from all participants If you send me an e-mail, absent an NDA, I generally have permission to disclose it to third parties. If FWD:Everyone required permission from all participants, they would simply fall prey to FWD:Everyone2 who didn't.

"If you send me an e-mail, absent an NDA, I generally have permission to disclose it to third parties."

Permission from whom? Certainly not from me.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#65

Post by yellowapple »

Alex3917 wrote: post #14
fdsa_asdf_666 wrote: post #11

> We use OAuth to sync with your Gmail inbox so we’ll never ask for the password to your inbox. Fuck. No. If this is (and to be honest I didn't read it that closely) just about making a particular email public, why not just have an inbound address? submit@fwdeveryone.com I'd actually consider using a service that did that.

> why not just have an inbound address? We'd love to! Unfortunately going from just the last email in the thread to being able to reconstruct the entire thread would be exceedingly difficult. Also, being able to use DKIM / SPF / DMARC / ARC to ensure the authenticity of conversations is very important to us. If you get a permission request from our site, we want you to be 100% confident that what you see when you pre…

"Unfortunately going from just the last email in the thread to being able to reconstruct the entire thread would be exceedingly difficult."

Good. That's the way it should be.

"The whole magic of the site is being able to have the experience of looking over other people's shoulders into their inbox, and seeing how they actually talk with one another when they're not on stage."

What you call "magic" is a blatant and disgusting violation of my privacy. Those messages are "not on stage" for a reason; if I wanted them to be "on stage", then I would put them there myself. You have no business "looking over [my] shoulder" at all, let alone inviting everyone else in the world to do so.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#66

Post by yellowapple »

omeid2 wrote: post #12
fdsa_asdf_666 wrote: post #11

> We use OAuth to sync with your Gmail inbox so we’ll never ask for the password to your inbox. Fuck. No. If this is (and to be honest I didn't read it that closely) just about making a particular email public, why not just have an inbound address? submit@fwdeveryone.com I'd actually consider using a service that did that.

They want that juicy juicy inbox data. Nope. Nope. Nope.

Agreed 100%. The premise of this service is already sketchy enough as-is; in light of the neverending parade of seemingly-benign "services" that eventually turn around and sell out their users to advertising agencies and the like, I have precisely zero reason to trust that FWD:Everyone will be any different in that regard.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#67

Post by sush99 »

Alex3917 wrote: post #25
sush99 wrote: post #20

I signed up, but I cant figure out how to delete my fweveryone account- is that not an option?

You can use Postman or whatever to send a DELETE request to https://api.fwdeveryone.com/account with your authorization token, but it's not in the front end yet. Alternatively just send us an email and I'll delete it.

Thanks! I like the website, and probably will stick around. Was just curious about not having the delete option :)

Re: FWD:Everyone

#68

Post by foo101 »

Alex3917 wrote: post #14
fdsa_asdf_666 wrote: post #11

> We use OAuth to sync with your Gmail inbox so we’ll never ask for the password to your inbox. Fuck. No. If this is (and to be honest I didn't read it that closely) just about making a particular email public, why not just have an inbound address? submit@fwdeveryone.com I'd actually consider using a service that did that.

> why not just have an inbound address? We'd love to! Unfortunately going from just the last email in the thread to being able to reconstruct the entire thread would be exceedingly difficult. Also, being able to use DKIM / SPF / DMARC / ARC to ensure the authenticity of conversations is very important to us. If you get a permission request from our site, we want you to be 100% confident that what you see when you pre…

> The whole magic of the site is being able to have the experience of looking over other people's shoulders into their inbox, and seeing how they actually talk with one another when they're not on stage.

I am having a hard time understanding if this is written sincerely or as satire.

I hope you are being humorous here because if this is indeed true, it does not look like something I would appreciate. I really don't want anyone to have the experience of looking over my shoulders into my inbox to see how I actually talk with others when I am not on stage.

I have always perceived email as a private mode of communication. Has this perception changed recently among the new generation of application developers?

Re: FWD:Everyone

#69

Post by crummy »

occamrazor wrote: post #57
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The default must be requiring explicit permission from all participants If you send me an e-mail, absent an NDA, I generally have permission to disclose it to third parties. If FWD:Everyone required permission from all participants, they would simply fall prey to FWD:Everyone2 who didn't.

From a GDPR perspective,sending an email gives the recipient the implicit permission to store and read the contents and metadata of the email, but not to transfer it to other parties (except the data processors that process the email) or publish it.

Does that mean I'm not allowed to forward emails you send me?

Re: FWD:Everyone

#70

Post by arikr »

Alex3917 wrote: post #47
arikr wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hope this does well (because I'd like to discover more interesting and useful content). I've been on the home page a few times and haven't yet signed up. My behavior on the homepage has been to click the "more example threads" button. I'd guess that the thing that would make me more likely to sign up is to be able to see/discover more great threads before signing up. (Similar suggestions that people have giv…

> I really hope this does well (because I'd like to discover more interesting and useful content). Thanks! Expect to see more content in the near future. And we definitely need to redo our front page and incorporate more cool content. It's a lot better than when we launched, but I feel like we haven't quite hit a level of professionalism that's reflective of the rest of the site. We’re trying to avoid raising capital…

Best of luck :)
Post reply on HN