Facebook is redesigning its core app
theverge.com
theverge.com
That's just one minor example. There's crap like this throughout the app. The web site is also glitchy as hell these days. When I brought up m.facebook.com the other day and went to type a status update, for every space I typed, two spaces were inserted.
I can never find settings for what I want. Most of the config is a mystery to me, no matter how many times facebook shows a message in my wall "hey, did you know you can do X this way?" or "we care about your privacy, so we added this or that option". I don't understand how groups work. I can never find the posts I want. Their constant reordering of my wall drives me mad. If I see a post I like, but I accidentally open a link or close the app and want to go back to it, it's bye bye post -- and good luck finding it again.
I cannot understand how facebook privacy works. I absolutely CANNOT send a private message to my wife sharing a photo "memory" of us two, no other people tagged, that facebook itself suggested I can share with her: it's always "message cannot be sent". What the hell, facebook?
I cannot understand how facebook censors publications in groups that sell things (too long to explain here, I asked a friend who works there, who asked the team involved, and they couldn't explain what was triggering the censorship either after I gave them the exact offending posts). Good luck finding specific posts in groups in a reasonable way, too.
I guess this is down to AI classifying the posts. No one can explain how the AI works except to say that it was trained on a huge amount of data and the data looks sufficiently similar to your posts that they got a bad score. (Also, welcome to the future! I expect in future lots of life-changing decisions will happen in a way that no one can explain or override).
I have productively used, for significant amounts of time: every desktop Windows since 3.1, maybe a half-dozen Linux window managers under almost as many distros, BeOS, Solaris CDE, and more, a half-dozen GUI word processing programs, at least as many instant message programs, forums of all sorts, maybe a dozen image and WYSYWG HTML editors combined, and so on off to the horizon. I've figured out how to use obtuse UIs for games like Shadow President and Crusader Kings II.
Facebook's UI was too confusing so I stopped using it. I couldn't figure it out at all. Recently I've been exposed to "Facebook Work" or whatever, and it's just as bad. What's this? Where does this post go? To whom? Why are these in this order? Is this thing the same as that other thing with the same name, and if so why's it on the page twice and grouped with different things? WTF.
The next thing to go was notifications. I don't care if my uncle liked my aunts posts, yet I get the notification! They even had the nerve to have a notification setting to turn this off that did absolutely nothing at all. Completely broken, but probably a feature and not a bug.
Have you ever seen a modern slot machine? There seems to be a pattern to winning, if only you study it a bit longer...just put in one more coin and the epiphany will come.
It is the least intuitive thing imaginable.
I think there is a certain logic to it, but it is a complicated logic, like learning Haskell or something.
The funny thing is a lot of artists seem to like it.
I haven't touched it in over 10 years, but back then it was super easy to get started with for a novice. Much easier than Mudbox. Though I had amazing Digital Tutors videos.
The UI seemed to have a lot of modes. I mean quite literally they seem hard to learn.
Come to think of it, Blender has a very nonintuitive UI as well. Holy moly, yikes.
I like to look at Solidworks as an example of how to make a 3D user interface rather approachable. It has simple objects organized cleanly.
Granted Solidworks is mechanical and ZBrush is organic, but I can't fathom that organic modeling would require a more complicated UI than mechanical design...
A command-line program is not typically intuitive to the average person, it's why we have GUIs, but given enough knowledge of how it works it's very efficient and powerful.
But just because it runs in a terminal doesn't mean it's scriptable easily.
I kind of think that once you've used ncurses in a terminal to make something interactive, you've just made a bad GUI. Slow, often bad scroll behavior, and very prone to the terminal state getting corrupted. (Think of what random binary data will do to your terminal...)
But that's just my opinion
They've redone it in the latest version (2.8) and fixed some of the oddities. Probably the most obvious example being left click selects instead of placing the 3d cursor, so it now behaves like every other program.
That was 10 years ago. Things may have changed for better or worse (or both)...
After mostly using Reddit for a while I realized that Facebook wasn't designed for having actual conversations or expressing yourself.
So for example, unlike sites like Reddit or HN, you can't downvote on Facebook. Downvoting is crucial so that the community can curate the content. Facebook (or Twitter) doesn't want you doing that. They just want as much content as possible and only care about likes/upvotes to trigger dopamine bursts. "Jane has liked your photo!!!" In anonymous sites people will just downvote you and tell you why you are wrong without mercy.
Another example. In Reddit and HN you have enough space for having actual conversations. In Facebook not only the space for comments is extremely small, but it's very difficult to know how are comments related to each other. After a couple of replies the UI stops making any sense. You don't know who is replying to who, etc. In practice, Facebook comments end up encouraging people leaving reactions to some content the user posted instead of being a place for discussion. Again, to trigger that dopamine burst when someone says something in the photo you just posted.
Of course, the objective of all this behavior shaping is to get more user engagement so that they spend more time in the platform and consume more ads.
If using the app, any mistaken gesture will undo all your progress loading previous comments to find the one referred to by another comment, which is very annoying. The UI is terrible. I usually just give up.
Everything indicates facebook is indeed not meant for conversations, which makes it doubly frustrating that people have decided to replace forums with it.
Axing the chronological feed wasn't about making the platform better, it was about making it more difficult and time consuming to use, and they lost me as a regular user in the process.
A (lay) reading of their TOS makes it less than clear this is the case. Sure, it’s yours, but they have the right to do as they please as far as I can tell. https://m.facebook.com/about/privacy/update?refid=42
Facebook wouldn't have a snowflakes chance in hell of demonstrating that even the most technically include user, or even a regular lawyer, fully understands what their agreeing to.
As far as I'm concerned, contracts are only binding if informed consent is given, and that's strictly not possible with Facebook's end user agreements.
Edit to add: what I mean to say is, we need strong legal protections for the average person in this the-user-isn't-the-customer world we live in.
You are indeed correct. Which is why GDPR, even with all of its faults, is a step in the right direction. GDPR requires what I call “informed(ish) consent(ish).” In the US a company just needs a record of you clicking “I accept” and you’re on the hook. Believe it or not this is a pretty big improvement from the recent past when they could just burry a clause in their T&C’s that said by simply being on the site you agreed to them. I’m pretty sure we have Dell & their shady software license (that you were forced to agree to before you could even read) to thank for that.
Facebook puts this in my news feed saying "X replied to a comment on this post" and showing the post. But if I go to comments, it doesn't surface the comment that my friend replied to (or their reply). Why tell me the comment exists and then not let me see it?
FB isn't convenient because people have an account that works with "Login with Facebook." It's convenient because it's a one stop shop for your members.
Whether FB is ideal is going to vary per community though.
I love the gym and I am probably the only member who doesn't use FB so I don't expect them to change, I just hope over time more and more people abandon it so they use more open methods of communications...
What defines Reddit is it's ranking algorithm, it's tree-shaped threads, and it's subreddits.
Which are not akin to subforums. Biggest difference being that anybody can very easily create a subreddit and moderate it.
Tree like threads existed on forums long before reddit. But this is one of the reasons I'd say reddit is more like a mailing list or a newsgroup.
> and it's subreddits.
Again, like a mailing list.
> What defines Reddit is it's ranking algorithm
This is it's big difference, I'm still not convinced ranking algorithms do more good than harm though.
I never said that reddit invented any of those things.
>We surely don’t need a multi-billion company to host events and groups for us
This is the crazy part about most "cloud" and "social" things today. Instead of spending money on making core technologies easy to use and accessible to all people we (collectively) fund middlemen who provide usability as a centralized, temporary service. This is exactly like TurboTax, except it's happening with all kinds of IT products and almost nobody cares.
For example, there is no fundamental reason why creating your own forum should be significantly more complicated than creating a Facebook account and installing their app on your phone. The only essential pieces of information you need for a forum are universal name/id of some sort (e.g. a domain name), administrative login and administrative password. Maybe not even that. Really, you don't even need login/password if you're okay with using email for authentication. Everything else is made-up bullshit that IT industry refuses to optimize (and, in fact, makes more complicated as years go by).
This isn't just about being annoyed by Facebook's bloated UI and glitches. We live in an increasingly information-driven society, so the ability of normal people to own and control their online information is increasingly important.
Acquiring users, finding volunteers for content moderation.. that’s the hard part.
It's hard enough that most people don't do it and a lot of them can't do it without expending unreasonable amount of time on learning how to jump through hoops. If you don't see that, you live in a bubble.
> Most readers on HN
So should be read as "Running a small to medium site isn't too hard for most readers on HN".
If it wasn't then that was a failure on my part to communicate effectively.
What are these things? I've never used a phpbb host before.
It's not just about phpbb. My guess is the biggest stumbling block for most people would be domain management. It's hard to say for sure after being immersed in IT for so long. Also, the wast majority of non-tech people I know have no idea what PHPbb even is. So they would have to learn about its existence first.
Mind you, I'm talking about a forum you would own, so services like Proboards or Craigslist are out of scope of the discussion.
Money, yeah. Well, there's no getting around that. Someone has to pay for that server. I don't see how the industry can optimize away the need to pay a fee for the hosting without becoming something like Facebook.
> My guess is the biggest stumbling block for most people would be domain management.
Well, yeah, but you've already mentioned that:
> The only essential pieces of information you need for a forum are universal name/id of some sort (e.g. a domain name),
I was wondering about the "everything else", what the made-up bullshit that the industry refuses to optimize was. I think web hosts that specialize in forum servers already integrate obtaining a domain from their own platform and even using a subdomain from one of their own, so I don't see what else they could do.
> Also, the wast majority of non-tech people I know have no idea what PHPbb even is. So they would have to learn about its existence first.
Me neither. I just saw it mentioned when I googled "forum hosting" and it seemed like the most popular forum software out there.
True, but hosting is super cheap. Unless your forum is wildly popular, you can get a full, reliable host for about $5/mo. If it becomes wildly popular (but not Facebook-level popular), this would rise -- but you're not likely to need to pay more than $20/mo.
By the same arithmetic, $20/month equates to $9,600.
So I think in a meaningful sense, your idea of "super cheap" is equivalent to "the price of a used car" if you look at the economic value of a monthly payment.
I think that shelling out $5/mo for what amounts to a hobby project is pretty darned cheap.
You don't have to agree with the equivalency I'm drawing. I'm making the point that if someone shies away from $5/month, and it's not clear to you why, maybe they implicitly recognize the value of a subscription in the same way I do. Describing a different perspective is not saying I am right and you are wrong.
Also, $5 being super-cheap is relative. If I was really strapped for cash, $5 would pay for nearly a week's worth of food. Some people can't spare that.
Absolutely true. I was not addressing the entire gamut of people, and my solution is certainly not good for everybody. But it's fair to say that $5/mo is a trivial amount of money for the vast majority of the population.
>I think web hosts that specialize in forum servers already integrate obtaining a domain from their own platform and even using a subdomain from one of their own, so I don't see what else they could do.
So you're telling me that there are no ease of use improvements possible when it comes to hosting trivial content like forums. And yet you also admit that Facebook allows people to host trivial content much easier than doing it "on their own". This position makes absolutely no sense.
Yeah, because they run their own highly efficient servers optimized for their own usecases. Of course your average joe can't run a forum for that cheap, that's the whole point of economies of scale.
I'm in a lot of Jeep communities and there are a LOT of forums. Local, regional, national, drama-splintered, etc. I want a system that aggregates things I care about to me, not to dig through page after page looking for something interesting, tracking things via email notifications or staying logged in constantly.
Kind of like a quasi Reddit/Forum/Twitter mix. Longer form, a great search, the ability to follow tags.
The rare time I sign up for a forum nowadays, if my first try username is taken I just don't even join it.
I deleted FB last year and this is one of the only real pains I have from doing so. It wasn't amazing for groups anymore but it was better than having to log in to 20 different forums to find out if any of the Jeep groups were going to XYZ event next weekend.
What's the problem with email notifications? I would think that's the ideal decentralized system that aggregates the things you care about. Is the problem that all notifications end up mixed in your inbox? One should be able put up an automated filter that moves incoming mail that matches arbitrary criteria and organizes these mails in folders. In fact, such a filter I believe is created automatically if you use `+` addresses in gmail and probably other email providers.
People often complain that forums are archaic, but they've been around so long they've solved so many problems in really usable ways. I often feel the fetishization of the new blinds people to existing, older solutions that work perfectly well.
I mostly blame that on the fact that my ~13yo gmail account is basically a graveyard of receipts and tracking numbers, the odd password recovery here and there, forum digests, thread replies, etc.
But the ones I’ve seen just end up being an disorganized mess of negative comments that should be directed to condo boards and security themselves. If there is useful information it shouldn’t be locked into a platform like FB either…
Indeed. Forums were (almost) perfect for me. Unfortunately the communities I was/am part of have switched to facebook, so my preferences don't matter. Facebook groups frustrate me to no end, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
However, the demise of RSS combined with the desire of individuals to share things online without having their own "site," means that there is no place like FB for aggregation of content I'm interested in.
I'm still trying to start a forum outside of FB, though. I'm using Discourse. It's a far cry from phpBB.
I think the only way to break the lock-in/network effect is: 1. creating a FB scraper; 2. push the scraped content to an alternative (more open) platform; 3. as more people use the scraper, more and more content from FB becomes available in the alternative platform; eventually everybody can move to the new platform.
Of course, a scraper is against FB's ToS, but this shouldn't be an impediment. For example, a scraper for YouTube has been available for years, and so far has not been successfully blocked.
How many of you remember NNTP, which offered a wealth of clients, each with its own formatting, threading, filtering, sorting, etc.? PHP forums weren't bad, but they were mostly just a mediocre replacement for what we already had. Now I expect we'll get this. Other than Facebook advertisers and shareholders, does anyone want it?
As in "we'll get this... shoved down our throats," or "we'll eventually give in to this." I think web forums took off because they could more easily display images (and banner ads). News readers were a bit techie, but could have been made as easy to use as modern mail readers with a bit of effort. Heck, there was even a web interface going back decades (gmane).
Imagine the Facebook news feed, but instead of them choosing what you see, you could use a program on your computer to sort, filter, and mark things read. That's what we had 30+ years ago.
Thorough review: https://www.forum-software.org/xenforo/review
More than that convenience, I think it's the convenience of not having to deal with configuring some forum server software and using it. To many people, FB is the internet. Basing a community elsewhere raises the bar of entry for their target community.
It was cool at first because I actually spent time with my "friends" on there, or at least saw them on a daily basis at my small high school. It's changed in a couple key ways over time:
1. Family joining Facebook. It used to be a funny place I could goof around with my friends, posting whatever I wanted. Now I have to filter everything I say because my grandparents can see it. I concede that that's probably not a concern for many people, but I noticed the "vibe" changed significantly when Facebook's popularity grew beyond high school/college age people.
2. Sharing. Virtually everything on my timeline came from pages that post short "viral" videos for people to share. No one was posting anything unique or interesting. It was like a heavily bastardized version of Reddit without any interesting content. Anecdotally, this content seems to appeal to older people, who don't know of ways to see more interesting content.
Privacy concerns aside, those are the main reasons that I no longer care about Facebook. I deleted mine 6 months ago and I don't miss it at all.
Google+ nailed this perfectly. You could place connections into Circles, and a post could be shared to specific circle(s). It let teenagers be teenagers, allowed professionals to separate their personal life and maintain a professional appearance, and so on.
In reality we do maintain separate personas for different groups of people we know, and it's ridiculous that no social network reflects this. The closest anyone else has come to this is Reddit where you can use multiple pseudonyms, so someone recognizing your posts/comments on one account does not get access to all of your posts/comments.
Also I'm pretty sure you can create lists of your friends and share certain posts or images with "everybody but X, Y, and Z" or "X and Z only" where [XYZ] are either lists or specific friends.
Even if it had been implemented in its current form 5 years ago, filtering post audiences still seems to involve a level of added complexity not readily tractable for your run of the mill user.
It used to be a bizarro town-hall of people I knew posting comments, photos etc. with each new post jumping to the top of the queue for people to pay attention to in "real time". It felt involved.
Now it just seems to be (in between all the shared memes and dodgy news articles) the more "active" posts popping up as a priority, which makes it feel more static to me. I liked seeing the posts with no likes as much as the high activity ones even if I wasn't going to like or comment on it myself. I wan't to see everything in order.
It's not very dynamic anymore.
I know you can still change the feed to chronological, but if most aren't doing that, the point is moot.
I use it for events, otherwise I'd have deleted it years ago too.
Any redesign or other change made to the platform is pointless without a clear narrative concerning the underlying value proposition. How does the change affect that value proposition? My take is that the value of Facebook is zero in the best case, and possibly a net negative for society at large and for individuals. Isn’t Facebook supposed to convince us that their premise isn’t all evil, that there’s something in it for us beyond participation in mass data collection?
The value prop for advertisers is obvious. Without Facebook, thousands of small businesses (delivering great services) would be much smaller or out of business.
The value prop for users is manifold. To name a couple, without Facebook, people wouldn't connect and interact with people outside their proximal social circles. These otherwise lost connections often lead to strong healthy friendships, relationships, and/or partnerships. Many people also derive satisfaction from an entertainment perspective through Facebook whether that be through gossiping, viewing cat memes, or playing games. Though you may find these to be unimportant, that's you projecting your value system on someone else.
To say that Facebook's existence is a net negative to society requires some fundamental assumptions around what is valuable. For example, if all you value in this world is privacy, then of course Facebook is detrimental. If what you value is family, entertainment, and pleasure, Facebook is probably of great benefit.
Of course they're not obligated, but it's a useful thing to ask in the context of this discussion. The average lifespan of a S&P 500 company is 18 years, tendency going down. So it seems to make sense to ask what Facebook's mi d and long term value proposition is.
And I think all the points you make don't apply to facebook in particular at all, but to online communication platforms in general. It's true that small businesses and communities profit from means to communicate online, but it's not obvious at all that in the future that means having a centralized, ad driven company run the show, or Facebook specifically.
In fact the entire pivot seems to indicate that all the things that facebook is built on, is ill suited for that future. How is Facebook going to sustain it's giant ad-driven money engine in a world of private, encrypted community interaction?
These claims have little to do with the argument OP made (or my response). That is: 1) Facebook provides zero or negative value to users today 2) The world would be better off without Facebook today 3) If Facebook disagrees with 1 or 2, they're obligated to explain why
2) this is so vague and subjective that it's meaningless, what does it mean? Better off, how? By whose standards?
3) if the above were true, why would FB be obligated to explain it?
Facebook is engineered to be addictive and to keep people engaged and present on the platform so they can be exploited for data.
If you are going to say Facebook provides these people value then I'm going to say a heroin distributor and his chemist provides a similar value to his customers.
> 2) this is so vague and subjective that it's meaningless, what does it mean? Better off, how? By whose standards?
Of course it's subjective, it's an opinion. One shared by a growing number of people.
> 3) if the above were true, why would FB be obligated to explain it?
They're not. Neither are people obliged to use their platform or abide by their terms of service if the company doesn't want to be forthcoming with explanations for its conduct.
I actually also agree with point 1, because I think that drug seekers are more rational actors than the average person. It seems indisputable that drug dealers provide value; the argument is that the long term harm outweights the immediate value, not that there is no value.
With Facebook, I think it's much less clear that using FB causes harm, much less harm on the same level as an opiod addiction. (I'm aware of the research out there that correlates depressive symptoms with social media usage.)
It seems silly to deny that people genuinely enjoy Facebook and find it useful. It makes sense considering that Facebook has supplanted and absorbed many of the sites and software that people used to use - Flickr, ICQ/AIM, and vBulletin/phpbb for instance.
I know a lot of people who share family photos on Facebook. I know many people who discuss topics ranging from gangstalking to glassblowing to autism. A lot of people share memes and humor and political discussion and people consume that content. Clearly people value FB for communication and entertainment. Messenger is also clearly with value for text chat, voice calls and video calls.
Many artists I know have made a living from selling things for free on Facebook, with few restrictions and 100% less fees than Etsy and eBay (the market switched to Instagram ~4 years ago). Many advertisers get the majority of their leads from Facebook.
Does the world need Facebook to do this? No, there are alternatives. But people clearly find it useful and it would be hard to support that the platform is without utility or value. Are you saying that the harm done by Facebook’s business practices exceeds the value of providing this for free to consumers?
And to confidently claim that all 2.3 billion users of Facebook are getting zero or negative value out of it is pretty naive.
This is a clever redesign because events are even 'stickier' in their network effects than the news feed is. I don't think it's altruistic, but I think it's smart.
> My take is that the value of Facebook is zero in the best case, and possibly a net negative for society at large and for individuals.
You could confidently make the same claim about alcohol and cigarettes, yet both of these are good business.
I haven't seen anything that has convinced me this is true.
I don't consider the dopamine-driven compulsions of its users to be evidence of 'want'.
Well over a billion daily active users on Facebook don't convince you that people want Facebook?
> I don't consider the dopamine-driven compulsions of its users to be evidence of 'want'.
Oh, you're looking for a semantic argument, possibly diving into the meaning and consequence of the concept of free will (or lack thereof). I ain't got time for that today.
It employs staff whose entire job consists of making Facebook's product more addictive; to keep people clicking, liking, viewing and handing over data to facilitate their being tracked all over the internet.
Heroin dealers often employ people to make their shit more addictive too. Yet we don't sit here musing about how much 'value' they've added to a society that clearly wants their product.
Again, this is moving into "semantic dispute" territory, where little insight is to be gained.
Right, which is why I think 'creating value' in and of itself is meaningless if you can't distinguish it from the kind that grants prosperity without exploitation and the kind that is simply parasitic.
I consider Facebook to be the latter.
Healthy communication with other humans requires empathy and careful consideration of how your words affect others. Both get thrown out the window when you blast something into a text box, aimed at a random username.
I mean sure you can argue, in circular fashion, that everything people do provides net value to them or else they wouldn't do it, in which case there's no actual way to falsify that claim, but in a more genuine sense it's not at all clear that social media consumption has long term, net individual or social benefits.
It is an extremely new technology that has entered our society without much oversight and there's no reason to believe we have a good grip on its mid and long term effects. The evidence we have, for example concerning mental health of adolescents, in particular girls, is quite devastating.
I ended up being way more focused that day just from cutting out those >30 second moments on the phone. Instead of my brain just shutting off and tuning out, I was actually thinking about my day and what I'm working on. I felt like a Buddhist monk!
Satisfying an addiction is not the same thing as providing value.
Facebook has employees whose entire job is to make this service addictive and to keep people posting.
In that sense, the 'value' is hard to differentiate from a dopamine-driven compulsion to continue posting and hitting 'like'.
Personally, I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything by not being on Fb.
FB is a vortex of dopamine hits, and zero 0⃣ value. It made me mad to be addicted to news I don't care about. I've manage to get myself out of that dopamine hit, and addicted to HN. But HN brings in some good information from time to time.
My understanding is that the hip and with-it (or the under-30s) don't use FB anyway nowadays.
For me, it's almost purely a slightly better version of SMS.
People who install adblockers are people who do not want to click on ads.
Ads can't be tailored to you if you click on every ad ever shown to you (in the background of course).
Me, accidentally while trying to tell facebook to never show me that ad again.
Like you noticed, the ad situation has become dire.
Still cluttered and awful but fast.
Facebook was always bad in that regard. Friends posts are small boxes, crammed between sidebars. This redesign seems to think that the stuff we're not interested in, the sidebars, needs even more enlargement.
I absolutely see why Facebook would want to be seen as the place where one goes to grow their community rather than the current stigma of fake news and inflammatory pieces on the feed.
Last winter I made a messenger bot[1] that was driving revenue ($5k/month for a CPG startup). Give that a try.
[1]https://www.nicholasjrobinson.com/blog/branding/three-ways-t...
I think the main benefit is that a lot of people have a facebook account, including those who would never have thought or bothered to join forums in the pre facebook era, so now we're seeing a ton of really great communities. Then again, I wasn't on the internet for all that much of the pre-facebook era, so maybe I don't really know how things were before.
i dont think people can get excited by this anymore though. Facebook is in a decline trajectory thats going to take a long time. The friends networks have become stale, and people are learning to move to other platforms. Like all other facebook's redesigns, this will create a massive backlash when it launches, but unlike previous times, it will most likely be seen as an excuse to quit the site.
I'd speculate that Facebook is emphasizing events and groups because, quite frankly, those are the two things people are still on Facebook for. (It isn't your baby pics!)
Most of my FB friends do similar, it’s very thoughtful and introspective.
I'm saying, it's the only reason at least 3 people I know haven't completely deleted Facebook.
This move reeks of desperation, Facebook needs to forget about 'redesign' and garbage like 'workspace' and just work on fixing it. The best way to do that is to get the people building it actually using it again.
Apple ][ Enthusiasts: https://www.facebook.com/groups/5251478676/
BMW i3 Worldwide: https://www.facebook.com/groups/BMWi3/
Monoprice Mini (3d printer group) https://www.facebook.com/groups/710952782398723/
Commodore Amiga: https://www.facebook.com/groups/CommodoreAmiga/
Anyway I hope they will not introduce some other spying/backdoors in the app (more than now)
Me, I'm really excited about the Quest. The Ars review is incredibly positive:
But I doubt they’ll actually simplify the underlying data-model, which makes the design a lie.
A lie at best, a confusing UX at worst. Time will tell.
Either way, as a quitee, I’m entirely unaffected and very happy about that.