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

I would rather drink piss like Bear Grylls than log in with Facebook

dickbrouwer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 129 posts

Re: I would rather drink piss like Bear Grylls than log in with Facebook

#71

Post by barrkel »

chimeracoder wrote: post #59
AlexandrB wrote: post #18

I don't care about apps using my Facebook data (what little there is). I don't trust Facebook not to use data from/about apps that I use. That's why I would never use my Facebook ID to log in to anything. Actually I can come up with a better summary: I don't trust Facebook

Its amusing how quickly people seem to have forgotten about Beacon - seems like we've set ourselves up for another privacy disaster of similar scale - or perhaps worse.

Who's forgotten about it?

I adblock at the request level everything from the facebook or fbcdn domains in my primary browser. I don't let FB get anything from my normal browsing.

Re: I would rather drink piss like Bear Grylls than log in with Facebook

#72

Post by timClicks »

esm23 wrote: post #70

I'm currently building a social media news aggregation site, and was considering the merits of using a Facebook/Twitter only login/comment services. Do you believe most potential users would be opposed to this? If using these services we would be very clear about privacy issues and options,giving our users the option of restricting their activities to our network, and not sharing the information with facebook/twitter…

Probably depends on your user base. The general public see Facebook Connect & similar services as a way to avoid needing to remember passwords.

I hate it though. It appears other, more technically inclined, folk do too.

Re: I would rather drink piss like Bear Grylls than log in with Facebook

#73

Post by ori_b »

melissamiranda wrote: post #66
ori_b wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to everything else, they've been saying that their new advertising model involves sponsored stories showing up on your newsfeed, and arranging and highlighting the timeline so that paid stories show up (and in fact, they already have paid stories labelled as such showing up on their pages occasionally). I don't trust a company that turns my friends into shills. It's slimy. I use facebook because it's conv…

Any company offering a free service has to make money somehow, and since they know 5% of internet browsing is on the Fb newsfeed, it's actually not surprising. I wonder, would you pay a $5 subscription so that Facebook doesn't show you ads and lets you own your data? Someone else suggested it.

I would not pay that to get rid of ads. However, ads don't bother me. The "social placement" advertising that (ab)uses my friend's content to turn them into shills is what I find a significant turnoff, combined with the other invasive and slimy methods of data collection mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

I don't care if Facebook does advertising. However, the slimy methods used burn any trust I have in them, and as a result, I'm not going to hand them any extra data if I can avoid it.

Re: I would rather drink piss like Bear Grylls than log in with Facebook

#74

Post by WettowelReactor »

melissamiranda wrote: post #66
ori_b wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to everything else, they've been saying that their new advertising model involves sponsored stories showing up on your newsfeed, and arranging and highlighting the timeline so that paid stories show up (and in fact, they already have paid stories labelled as such showing up on their pages occasionally). I don't trust a company that turns my friends into shills. It's slimy. I use facebook because it's conv…

Any company offering a free service has to make money somehow, and since they know 5% of internet browsing is on the Fb newsfeed, it's actually not surprising. I wonder, would you pay a $5 subscription so that Facebook doesn't show you ads and lets you own your data? Someone else suggested it.

I am curious why this is not a more popular option across the board. Free with AD's or pay for no ads and no tracking. I would gladly pay for some of the free services if I could get these options and wont even use them for free while the tracking is in place.

Re: I would rather drink piss like Bear Grylls than log in with Facebook

#76

Post by gabaix »

melissamiranda wrote: post #62
smacktoward wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think they weren't busy in 2009 and 2010, either: http://consumerist.com/2009/02/facebooks-new-terms-of-servic... http://techcrunch.com/2009/12/09/facebook-privacy/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230477280457555... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/facebook-rogue/

Thanks, point more than proven.

Mark Zuckerberg's perceived public figure does not inspire confidence either. His first actions with Facebook and the story around The Social Network have tainted Facebook for good.

Note this might be far from his real personality. People I know at Facebook love him.

Re: I would rather drink piss like Bear Grylls than log in with Facebook

#77

Post by possibilistic »

esm23 wrote: post #70

I'm currently building a social media news aggregation site, and was considering the merits of using a Facebook/Twitter only login/comment services. Do you believe most potential users would be opposed to this? If using these services we would be very clear about privacy issues and options,giving our users the option of restricting their activities to our network, and not sharing the information with facebook/twitter…

I can't speak for everyone, but please just take my email address. There is no Facebook or Google Plus in my life, and I don't use my old Twitter account. I only keep up with a handful of people--something I can do with email and phone; I don't want to give glorified marketers another tool for spying on me. For me personally, the web is just a means to gain and exchange useful information to aid in my academic life; I like to stay "disconnected", if that makes sense.

Everyone uses the web differently. I understand that other (much larger) demographics have no problem with single sign on and that you can perhaps get to market faster without implementing a dedicated sign up system. I respect that.

I do like "social" (I hate that word) news sites; a tool to help cull non-interest items, prioritize on key interests, and introduce novel information from users who share similar interest graphs would help me out enormously.

I don't want to derail the topic, but has anyone given a thought as to whether aggregation (and distribution and reader functionality) could work in a decentralized, p2p manner? Without relying on a central authority of any kind?

I would love a scaled-down, low-bandwidth bittorrent-type app that delivers news items (with highlighted commentary) to my devices, already wrapped in an readability like interface, collected from among my "interest graph peers". That way, the mining/ML algorithms and processing overhead can be implemented and tweaked by me.

Re: I would rather drink piss like Bear Grylls than log in with Facebook

#78

Post by icebraining »

joering2 wrote: post #63
melissamiranda wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Super interesting. I wonder what would happen if Facebook would implement a subscription service that shows no ads and lets you own and control your data. It's not a bad idea- I'll see if a friend at Fb will ask Zuckerberg if they've ever considered this.

no need to -- I will answer you. Its not feasible in FB current situation. IF they make $100 per year per user already on showing ads/tracking/selling/analyzing/whatever they do to make a buck, then going down to $5/month/user and shifting from paying advertiser to paying user would make it a ghost town. Bottom line: I think most people enjoy what they get out of FB even if they data is being used/sold and they are,…

1) They don't make $100/user/year, not even close. They have 800M users and made 4.27B$ last year. That's $5.33 per user per year.

Even considering their number of active users is bunk, there's no way they've reach anything close to $100/user/year - that would mean they only had 42M users.

2) I don't think the suggestion was for them to shift to another revenue model, I think it was to give the option of subscribing. Much like many other sites e.g. Slashdot, Reddit, etc. Most people would probably still choose the free option.

Re: I would rather drink piss like Bear Grylls than log in with Facebook

#79

Post by franze »

waleedka wrote: post #57

Before blaming the 50% drop-off on Facebook, you should measure the drop-off of the ID/password approach and compare the two. I would expect the drop-off for any login method to be relatively high on mobile apps. Anyone has data they can share?

i know the stats of some websites(or webapps if you like to call them as such) which started years ago with user/pass and after integrating fb got a major better sign-up rate. most logged-in users now use the site via fb.

either mobile is majorly different, the tinyreview adopter group is majorly different, their product is majorly different or their analysis is flawed (as you have pointed out correctly)

Re: I would rather drink piss like Bear Grylls than log in with Facebook

#80

Post by icebraining »

possibilistic wrote: post #77
esm23 wrote: post #70

I'm currently building a social media news aggregation site, and was considering the merits of using a Facebook/Twitter only login/comment services. Do you believe most potential users would be opposed to this? If using these services we would be very clear about privacy issues and options,giving our users the option of restricting their activities to our network, and not sharing the information with facebook/twitter…

I can't speak for everyone, but please just take my email address. There is no Facebook or Google Plus in my life, and I don't use my old Twitter account. I only keep up with a handful of people--something I can do with email and phone; I don't want to give glorified marketers another tool for spying on me. For me personally, the web is just a means to gain and exchange useful information to aid in my academic life;…

I don't want to derail the topic, but has anyone given a thought as to whether aggregation (and distribution and reader functionality) could work in a decentralized, p2p manner? Without relying on a central authority of any kind?

I think that's Usenet (cue George Santayana's quote).

It doesn't have a centralized authority, it's delivered in machine readable formats (so you can easily process it), it has plenty of readers, etc.

Post reply on HN