I would rather drink piss like Bear Grylls than log in with Facebook
dickbrouwer.com
dickbrouwer.com
Actually I can come up with a better summary: I don't trust Facebook
I'm a designer so it's interesting to me what's behind all the Facebook hate.
Facebook login makes sense in its convenience, but in reality, it grates against something that's pretty important to a lot of people: how they present themselves in front of an audience.
Maybe, and it may in fact be that relative anonymity is a net loss for a community. But I find that it's rare for a conversation to rise in quality above "Okay" if I know everyone I'm talking with. This is part of why discussions over web forums and the like are so interesting. If everyone can say what they really think, then everyone can talk about more than just surface issues.
Sure theres the people who try to use their mask to hurt others, but theres plenty of people who don't. And some degree of anonymity is required to get those outlier conversations that make you wish they'd go on longer, regardless of how long you've been talking.
EDIT: Of course, the first rule of Internet pseudo anonymity is that people you haven't talked to for a non-trivial length of time don't get webcam privileges, ever.
What we found in opening up Tiny Review to other login options was actually pretty civil. We haven't seen much offensive content at all, nor spam. It might be that we're still small yet, but I think I agree with you. Letting people refine their identity for a particular site usually frees up their expression and you get good results. While you're small, it's not a problem. Once you scale enough to have a large userbase, you normally have the time and resources for content moderation.
If they would charge me $5/month for an account BUT give me fair, solid and reasonable TOS that I own my data and they DONT make money off of my eyeballs and clicks under some sort of a penalty. And throw an Independent Board of Facebook Policy-makers so its not that one hacker own majority of the vote.
You can try to revert this and get your answer out of it.
I guess I could send that to a school or hospital or some such. But it'd be neat if they realised that some people are happy to pay for good reporting.
Maybe there's a need for some simple online-only sub, with feedback buttons of "good quality" or "poor quality" on each article.
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.
2) they can't offer such an option, facebook is a machine designed to collect, store, hold and aggregate user data and they built a business model out of it. Putting the user in control of its data is the opposite of what facebook wants. You can't really compare the subscription of news aggregator websites and an hypothetical subscription on facebook. Facebook is unique in the fact that it holds user personal data and has a strong grasp on it through heavy vendor lock-in, you can easily leave slashdot or reddit and get your news elsewhere from an alternative but you can't leave facebook easily because they have your data, data you need in your daily use and there's nowhere to go to to find an equivalent.
That's what you're missing.
I would not use Facebook if they did all that and paid me $5 per month to use it. Or even $50 per month.
The site is spyware incarnate, and it'll take a lot more than a TOS (not even a piece of paper) and an "Independent Board of Facebook Policy-makers" to make me trust the site enough to use it.
It would have to be totally revamped technologically to be fully anonymous -- and peer to peer, so that the only people who get my data in the first place are my friends. Not some corporation (no matter what promises it gives), but just my friends, and only my friends.
[1] http://www.pcworld.com/article/140182/facebooks_beacon_more_...
[2] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/canadian-gro...
[3] http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/media-lab/social-media/14...
Note this might be far from his real personality. People I know at Facebook love him.
I haven't seen that movie, but let me just say that I simply can't help but deeply mistrust a person who considers privacy "obsolete" (which he has stated multiple times in the past) and, through his creation, effectively works to reduce it for everybody.
I'm deeply scared of a future where you need a Facebook (and/or Google) account to do anything meaningful on the web, and I hope that we will never arrive at such a future. I won't join Facebook under any circumstance short of a gun pointed at my head.
1. The reason not to trust {big company X} is that there's no reason to trust them. Their interests are not your interests. They are big enough that loss of one client is nothing for them. They have more lawyers than you have dollars, so short of overt crimes they would be able to do anything with your data and you could do nothing to them. They are popular enough that if they don't screw up something major they can live with significant number individuals pissed off about them and not care the least.
2. Facebook management's position, which they expressed a number of times publicly, is that anonymity is harmful and privacy has no value and should not exist on the internet. Here's but one example: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_sa... If I had to choose one company that should not be trusted with my private info that would be the one whose founder publicly states that privacy should not exist. In short, consider any info going into Facebook as if it were to be published in New York Times. If you're not OK with that - keep it to yourself.
I don't trust a company that turns my friends into shills. It's slimy.
I use facebook because it's convenient for keeping in touch with friends and keeping up to date with events. I don't like it or trust it much.
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 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.
I don't trust FB, but I don't hate it. Not trusting someone does not mean you hating them.
I don't trust a rapist to have a friendship relationship with my niece but this does not mean I hate them, I 'm just not going to let it happen. I visit them at jail and they are not monsters, they just feel a urge to rape.
I don't trust my sons playing with fire either(single digits years old) but I don't hate them, I love them.
I don't trust FB with my personal info because it is none of their business. Or should I say it is because their business is selling personal info to third parties.
That you don't see what they do with your data does not mean that it does not exist(out of sight, out of mind).
(Edited PS) What people HATE is being forced to use something they don't want to use in order to do something they want to do(like use this service).
I don't appreciate the repeated attacks against personal freedom (they like to call it privacy) and against the internet and open web. I dislike the methods and techniques of manipulation they used.
For someone who had some experience of the internet it was quite obvious what was going to happen, history repeats itself, except that when microsoft tried to bypass the internet and build a microsoft network a.k.a. msn, included in windows, they failed hard.
Now with the critical mass and sheer momentum, everyone and their friends are asking to have the closed and proprietary facebooknet preloaded in their mobile device. But I won't be part of the effort to destroy the open internet, so I quit google and its free services and block everything facebook.
I don't use FB but I have a fake account specifically for this purpose. They are more than welcome to my alter ego's (who is 30+ years older than me and lives in a different state) opinion on pizza crust recipes, bike parts purchases, etc.
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.
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)
Realistic Headline: "Tiny Review and the Perils of only offering Facebook Login"
Also, I would love to see more sites that Facebook Auth to just asking for e-mail address permission and that's it. Just simply as a log-in tool..
There's no incentive for me, as a college derp, to turn it off - after all, it's not impacting my experience on Facebook. Sure, everyone else's feeds are annoying, but it's like a mix of the prisoner's dilemma and the tragedy of the commons.
Not to mention, you can hide truly annoying feeds - but again, most people don't care.
My solution is no longer visiting Facebook. I keep my account because it's still the least inconvenient way to plan events.
Disclaimer: FB engineer who uses Spotify all day every day.
Its cool that all us techie types knowing all about these issues, but does the average mug user know, or know enough to care? Most of the "normal" people I know don't even consider this sort of stuff, they just go along with it. "Yeah, whatever", seems to be the usual response. You can see them glaze over and mentally shut down if I dare try to explain it. That sort of go in to "conspiracy nut" mode.
I hate it though. It appears other, more technically inclined, folk do too.
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.
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.
Personally, I like StackExchange's model: http://i.imgur.com/7iAgB.png
It gives you some default options, but it still has that "Show more login options …" link for people who don't like them.
Obviously many people are willing to use their Facebook or other accounts as credentials, but you will lose potential users/customers by making it mandatory. I don't know how many, but it's something you should consider.
If I wanted to join a network separate from Facebook, why would I want that network to have access to my Facebook?
I use Spotify and Songkick reluctantly only because they are great services. Facebook is a great way to get your name out there, but I'd rather fill out a few text fields than have a service I want to use depend on Facebook.
People join new networks to get away from Facebook, not extend it into every sector of their lives.
Possibly because that network offers thing that FB doesn't, even if you don't have a problem with it.
People join new networks to get away from Facebook, not extend it into every sector of their lives.
Are you sure you aren't attributing your own personal opinions to others? Not wanting to login using FB has other possible explanations, like not trusting the new site/app not to spam your friends. It's not necessarily trying to "get away" from Facebook.
I wish there were an open source project that unified best practices (in various tech stacks).
The registration is often a barrier preventing people from using your service, and it's not even mandatory to have user management [1].
[1]: https://jobpoacher.com/blog/blog/2012/02/13/what-craigslist-...
I think the best process is to give users a feel for your product without an account being necessary. Maybe it's just in READ mode with the ability to WRITE enabled upon signup. Or just simply ask for an email address which is then used as a unique identifier for your account. Oink did this awhile back.
2. I think the Facebook hate is miss-placed. Do you really hate Facebook (provider of a tool) or those who spam you via Facebook (users of the tool)? If you're so worried about Facebook tracking you offsite, why have an account at all? They're in the business of collecting, optimizing, and monetizing the social graph. If their platform has more 'cons' than 'pros' I think you should ditch it and keep your tin foil hat on. I myself use it, with my tin foil hat on, but don't go through the hoops to block it as some of you are doing.
I think it is right on. Both because the tool shapes the usage (if your only tool is hammer, all problems look like nails). I don't have one.
"hey we have this fantastic service offering this and that, but we don't want you to use it (unless you register to a third party whose sole purpose is to collect as much personal data on you as possible and has a long history of privacy issues)". Best sales pitch ever.
I trust facebook for snooping in on the data provided by 3rd party apps, they've been doing all the dirty tricks of the book since they started.
why no facebook account for me ? because it was obvious from the beginning where facebook was heading with a business rooted in linking real world identities and online activities. They are basically building a closed facebooknet to compete with the open web and internet. There's no way I would be part or support a closed and proprietary internet.
Problem solved.
This is utter BS and the author knows it. The last people you want to fill the role of early adopter are the people of Facebook. Nurture, foster, incubate. That's lazy business people speak for not actually doing any work of note and spending more time networking and that all-consuming fundraising so they can actually hire someone to do the work for them and pay them squat. You know, living the dream that made them go to B-school in the first place.
Facebook-only? That's what lazy people do.
The decision had nothing to do with laziness, and everything to do with encouraging real identity on the app.
You need to recognize it when you read it.
If you look at the famous example of the month of eternal september [1], the problem at hand showed a totally different picture, an artificially high number of newcomers overcharging the capacity of the community to properly teach them how to behave [2]. In short when your user base grows organically you have minimal bad behaviour.
Then again if you look at facebook itself you'll find more than the regular share of inane bs and bad behaviour.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September [2]: http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/index.html
Could you elaborate on this?
Your comment is wrong and false. He doesn't spend every night in a hotel, the shoots are between 5 to 7 days. Some he stays outside all night, the other supporting shots he stays in a hotel.
He risks his life in significant (and foolish) ways every episode. Climbing and swinging on rope vines over 1,000 foot drops are not faked. Hunting by hand, cleaning and cooking animals, or eating them raw is not faked. Sure he has assistance and safety precautions but that's reasonable.
I'd recommend you check out a series called Survivorman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorman
It's a guy who goes out into the wilderness to survive with nothing but some basic gear and a couple of cameras and tripods. Less flashy but way more realistic.
Though they're not with him, Les stroud also has a support crew and a way to contact them in case of life-threatening emergency.
There was one particular episode where he had to find some natives to get him out because he was dying of dehydration. He got sick and had diaharrea and no one was there to help him.