Comments on: Facebook’s Growing Design Problem (and a proposed solution) http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/ Interface Design & UX by Joshua Porter Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:28:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: family http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-152966 family Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:59:23 +0000 http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-152966 The feeling of control we have over the communication and content faucets in social networking are nice. But Facebook (like others) is in this thing to make money. Marketing networks have shared informtion for decades while offering minimal control, let alone opt-in/out options, to their members. It makes sense to hear more voices of appallment about this now that we belong to these instant and transparent networks. I’m just surprised at the types of things people are being offended by in this age of blatant self-expression. The feeling of control we have over the communication and content faucets in social networking are nice. But Facebook (like others) is in this thing to make money. Marketing networks have shared informtion for decades while offering minimal control, let alone opt-in/out options, to their members. It makes sense to hear more voices of appallment about this now that we belong to these instant and transparent networks. I’m just surprised at the types of things people are being offended by in this age of blatant self-expression.

]]> By: ailaG http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150493 ailaG Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:18:58 +0000 http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150493 As I understand, Facebook did not send information to 3rd parties, but rather - the 3rd parties sent information to Facebook. But I may be wrong about that. AndreL - You can edit your mini feed. Go to privacy > mini feed and to application editing (btw, when you add an app it ASKS you whether it can write to your mini feed. Facebook asks it, not the app) As I understand, Facebook did not send information to 3rd parties, but rather – the 3rd parties sent information to Facebook. But I may be wrong about that.

AndreL – You can edit your mini feed. Go to privacy > mini feed and to application editing (btw, when you add an app it ASKS you whether it can write to your mini feed. Facebook asks it, not the app)

]]> By: videolar http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150492 videolar Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:11:10 +0000 http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150492 My mum says, " Don't spend time with face book study your text book." My mum says, ” Don’t spend time with face book study your text book.”

]]> By: Ryan http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150320 Ryan Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:56:32 +0000 http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150320 Beacon is now opt-in, they made changes last week. Read the news. Beacon is now opt-in, they made changes last week. Read the news.

]]> By: Brad Fults http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150316 Brad Fults Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:03:09 +0000 http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150316 Above, Jefferson Fletcher misunderstands the gist of the complaint/warning. Specifically, the question is not whether Facebook can legally share information with third parties based on a user's acceptance of terms (even if the user does not read them); the complaint is that Facebook is possibly betraying the trust of its loyal users. The problem is a philosophical and social one, not legal. As for the issue itself represented by Josh Porter, I agree that an opt-in-only policy would probably do more to keep the trust of skeptical users, but I'm not convinced that it's a large enough problem to necessitate such action. Even given your scenario of buying a Maxim magazine, I'm inclined to say that anyone who is in that situation needs to first and foremost reexamine their relationship with their wife rather than worry about merchants catering to their unhealthy paranoia. The new technological openness ushered in by the latest generation of social web applications is meant to mirror the social openness of Generation Y and the shedding of outdated paranoid values. I, for one, think that it's incredibly useful that Yelp and others can send data to my Facebook account. If I make a purchase that I don't want people to see (likely only if I were buying a surprise gift or something -- prudish secrecy is irrational and destructive) then I can just remove the story when Facebook's notice shows up or remove it from my news feed later. In other words, the low barrier to removal combined with the high potential value and undeniable trend toward rational social transparency make me conclude that this feature is not harmful or dubious to the degree implied in the above article. Above, Jefferson Fletcher misunderstands the gist of the complaint/warning. Specifically, the question is not whether Facebook can legally share information with third parties based on a user’s acceptance of terms (even if the user does not read them); the complaint is that Facebook is possibly betraying the trust of its loyal users. The problem is a philosophical and social one, not legal.

As for the issue itself represented by Josh Porter, I agree that an opt-in-only policy would probably do more to keep the trust of skeptical users, but I’m not convinced that it’s a large enough problem to necessitate such action.

Even given your scenario of buying a Maxim magazine, I’m inclined to say that anyone who is in that situation needs to first and foremost reexamine their relationship with their wife rather than worry about merchants catering to their unhealthy paranoia. The new technological openness ushered in by the latest generation of social web applications is meant to mirror the social openness of Generation Y and the shedding of outdated paranoid values.

I, for one, think that it’s incredibly useful that Yelp and others can send data to my Facebook account. If I make a purchase that I don’t want people to see (likely only if I were buying a surprise gift or something — prudish secrecy is irrational and destructive) then I can just remove the story when Facebook’s notice shows up or remove it from my news feed later. In other words, the low barrier to removal combined with the high potential value and undeniable trend toward rational social transparency make me conclude that this feature is not harmful or dubious to the degree implied in the above article.

]]> By: Elena http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150310 Elena Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:29:14 +0000 http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150310 People's lack of respect to their own and others' privacy is really quite revolting. People’s lack of respect to their own and others’ privacy is really quite revolting.

]]> By: AndreL http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150227 AndreL Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:55:10 +0000 http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150227 Another Facebook feature that I find offensive to my privacy is the Mini-Feed that shows every little activity I do with my account. Ok, there's the hide button, which allows you to hide some of your activities, but that's not the solution. Every time a I do something, that becomes public to everyone. It's very annoying. The users activities should be private by default. Another Facebook feature that I find offensive to my privacy is the Mini-Feed that shows every little activity I do with my account.
Ok, there’s the hide button, which allows you to hide some of your activities, but that’s not the solution. Every time a I do something, that becomes public to everyone. It’s very annoying. The users activities should be private by default.

]]> By: Pauric http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150225 Pauric Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:40:12 +0000 http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150225 The interesting aspect of this, for me, that I dont see reported on specifically is how the community is forcing change back to more privacy. Its hard to see that happening as swiftly, if at all, in the real world (the starbucks-maxim example) So, while I agree this is a huge design issue. Users have the power to rebel and force change in their virtual communities. The interesting aspect of this, for me, that I dont see reported on specifically is how the community is forcing change back to more privacy. Its hard to see that happening as swiftly, if at all, in the real world (the starbucks-maxim example)

So, while I agree this is a huge design issue. Users have the power to rebel and force change in their virtual communities.

]]> By: Joe http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150196 Joe Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:05:58 +0000 http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150196 Wow that is totally unacceptable. I think this demonstrates companies like Facebook creating functionality without thinking of the implications first. The Maxim example is funny but scary - I would be in some trouble! Wow that is totally unacceptable. I think this demonstrates companies like Facebook creating functionality without thinking of the implications first. The Maxim example is funny but scary – I would be in some trouble!

]]> By: Jefferson Fletcher http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150159 Jefferson Fletcher Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:18:38 +0000 http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150159 Taken from the post: "Now, I realize that Facebook can do whatever the heck their privacy policy and terms of service say they can do. But absolutely nobody reads those documents…its not explicit consent by any means." Agreeing to terms of service actually is explicit consent to large degree. I do think it's safe to say the majority of people don't read those user contracts to the letter, but the company tendering said contract isn't at fault for that. The feeling of control we have over the communication and content faucets in social networking are nice. But Facebook (like others) is in this thing to make money. Marketing networks have shared informtion for decades while offering minimal control, let alone opt-in/out options, to their members. It makes sense to hear more voices of appallment about this now that we belong to these instant and transparent networks. I'm just surprised at the types of things people are being offended by in this age of blatant self-expression. Facebook talking with outside companies has to be expected to grow the business. If I complete a movie quiz, then get a message or coupon from Blockbuster as a result, is that a big deal? Does the inverse example that Josh talks about above actually happen without consent, even if that consent is buried in a terms of use agreement? I'm really not trying to play devil's advocate here. If anything I'm trying to better understand 1)how many Facebook users are miffed about this? 1 percent? 10? 50? 2)Specifically why are people so upset? Because of hypotheticals, or because of actually embarassing or identity/privacy threatening situations? Taken from the post:

“Now, I realize that Facebook can do whatever the heck their privacy policy and terms of service say they can do. But absolutely nobody reads those documents…its not explicit consent by any means.”

Agreeing to terms of service actually is explicit consent to large degree. I do think it’s safe to say the majority of people don’t read those user contracts to the letter, but the company tendering said contract isn’t at fault for that.

The feeling of control we have over the communication and content faucets in social networking are nice. But Facebook (like others) is in this thing to make money. Marketing networks have shared informtion for decades while offering minimal control, let alone opt-in/out options, to their members. It makes sense to hear more voices of appallment about this now that we belong to these instant and transparent networks. I’m just surprised at the types of things people are being offended by in this age of blatant self-expression.

Facebook talking with outside companies has to be expected to grow the business. If I complete a movie quiz, then get a message or coupon from Blockbuster as a result, is that a big deal? Does the inverse example that Josh talks about above actually happen without consent, even if that consent is buried in a terms of use agreement?

I’m really not trying to play devil’s advocate here. If anything I’m trying to better understand 1)how many Facebook users are miffed about this? 1 percent? 10? 50? 2)Specifically why are people so upset? Because of hypotheticals, or because of actually embarassing or identity/privacy threatening situations?

]]> By: Bart Stevens http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150153 Bart Stevens Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:40:00 +0000 http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150153 Josh, Early next week, we (the VRM gang) will have a meeting during IIW 2007 in Mountain View, to discuss this topic. You are right, the consumer needs to be aware (and maybe even protected) by people like you and me that this is happening. Check out my blog, where I will post updates on next steps in the VRM space Cheers Bart ichoosr.com/blog Josh,

Early next week, we (the VRM gang) will have a meeting during IIW 2007 in Mountain View, to discuss this topic. You are right, the consumer needs to be aware (and maybe even protected) by people like you and me that this is happening.
Check out my blog, where I will post updates on next steps in the VRM space
Cheers

Bart

ichoosr.com/blog

]]> By: Asi http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150148 Asi Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:43:45 +0000 http://bokardo.com/archives/facebooks-growing-design-problem-and-a-proposed-solution/#comment-150148 Absolutely right and your solution is brilliant in it's simplicity, fairness and common sense. I really do hope that Mr Zuckenberg will be keen to make facebook users happy as much as he is keen to make advertisers happy or to claim to get the holy-grail of social advertising (trusted referrals) A. Absolutely right and your solution is brilliant in it’s simplicity, fairness and common sense.

I really do hope that Mr Zuckenberg will be keen to make facebook users happy as much as he is keen to make advertisers happy or to claim to get the holy-grail of social advertising (trusted referrals)

A.

]]>