Hacker News Reader

Comment by akshayubhat | Hacker News Reader

wouldn't it be easier to email the pics to the friends directly?

Posterous works because people actually intend to publish their thoughts, and they are uncomfortable with using an web interface. But in case of picture I dont think people would be comfortable with idea of sending it to a third party website, why not just add multiple emails addresses to your 'to' field. also threaded conversations make it easier to have all comments / replies in a single place.

Also facebook album with proper privacy settings is much better option.

View on HN

> wouldn't it be easier to email the pics to the friends directly?

I think you're underestimating the value of organizing the information into one place. And I'm sure there are/will be other features than just picture sharing.

> I dont think people would be comfortable with idea of sending it to a third party website...facebook album with proper privacy settings is much better option

This strikes me as a tad contradictory. People wouldn't trust a third party with these pictures but facebook is somehow okay.

facebook provides a better way of organizing them via tags. and regarding trusting facebook, people are motivated to learn facebook privacy settings, since they are using it everyday.

Finally a person savvy enough to use such website/ email based service, must already be proficient with Facebook settings.

This site could work well for someone who is not that technically proficient, but had a tech-savvy friend who created a group. A layperson could easily handle visiting the site to look at other people's photos, and e-mailing pictures to the site when they want to share them.

Also, you leave out the possibility that Facebook might alter the privacy settings without warning, which could catch even a savvy user by surprise.

We are also building out features to make it much easier to upload single photos, albums, videos, as well as tag users, invite friends from FB into the group, etc... baby steps.

The problem with Facebook settings is not merely that they are hard to find, hard to use, and tedious to set.

The problem is that you can twiddle the knobs and dials, but you have no confidence that they are connected to anything. Or that, if connected today, they will remain connected tomorrow. Facebook has made it clear that your privacy settings are not particularly important to them. They change the settings mechanism and defaults every six months, and somehow every such change tends to start leaking information for advertising or SEO purposes. Why, it's almost as if Facebook was being run by this guy:

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg told a live audience yesterday that if he were to create Facebook again today, user information would by default be public, not private as it was for years until the company changed dramatically in December.

That's a different paradigm. It's one thing for me to, say, post a drunken picture of myself on Facebook/Fridge. It's another to actively invade my friend's inboxes. The former is the acceptable way currently (other than the social ramifications). The latter will make my friends think I'm desperate for attention.

Overall, I can't say I'll be participating in either activity though.

I agree your last comment, but I thought this service was for sharing with friends who are intimate enough to care for such pictures.

Also how is sending a link or notification about new pictures different from sending actual images. In case a group link is created.

It is unlikely that without notifications, people will actually go and browse the link for new pictures. In that case isn't it same as posting it on your Facebook profile as an album with appropriate privacy settings?

> In that case isn't it same as posting it on your Facebook profile as an album with appropriate privacy settings?

Exactly. I think the point is that FB's privacy settings are difficult for the average user to understand. FB also has a public-by-default policy, whereas The Fridge appears to be the opposite.

FB also changes their privacy features without giving users a heads-up first.

Although the private by default thing is a nice idea, here's the problem with the fridge's model:

What about the situation where someone in a group goes 'rogue' and invites people who other group members don't want to see their stuff? These new members will see everything already posted... I think it's an important principle that anything you post to a group should only be visible to members of the groups _at that time_... otherwise you have no real control over the info you share.

The difference is that a notification is not coming from me. It can be disabled or even filtered easily. If I send the pictures directly I am taking that control away from my friends: I don't have an unsubscribe button.

> Also facebook album with proper privacy settings is much better option.

I think this is superior due to the simplicity of the privacy settings.

The main benefit I see is for events and occasions where multiple people want to share photos. They can all be uploaded to a single location/group rather than spread out among several different facebook albums. In addition, only the users within the group can view them. You could be diligent in the privacy settings for the photos you upload yourself, but your friend might not be and the photos could still be viewed by mutual acquaintances.

The same reason why people use facebook and don't just email their friends/family anymore. Having it all organized and separated from other activities is a huge benefit. I don't think too many people actually worry (or even know it's an issue) about the photos being stored on 3rd party servers being compromised.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com