Hacker News Reader

Comment by Karunamon | Hacker News Reader

>so these venues get empty pleasantries from me, certainly nothing controversial in any way.

Is nobody familiar with the privacy settings? Facebook has lists, G+ has circles. One for family, one for acquaintances, one for close friends, one for business. Guess who gets to see the pictures from the house party and who doesn't?

View on HN

> Is nobody familiar with the privacy settings?

I'm not, and neither are you unless you work there. They routinely add new settings with recklessly chosen defaults; there's no way to be confident about may be publicized while we aren't looking.

And yet I'm somehow the only person on the face of the internet that's never had something revealed on FB that I didn't want to.

Either this makes me lucky enough that I should consider playing the lottery, or these concerns are overstated.

Facebook had lists. I was happily using them. Then Facebook added more lists with default names, with no way to delete them. Now I'm never 100% confident I've got everyone in the correct list. Who knows what will happen the next time they update?

Adding new lists somehow made the existing lists you had set up inconsistent? I don't understand.

Facebook pushes the their new lists, while ignoring the old ones. I'm constantly suggested to add people to the new lists, but not to the old ones. I started doing this, not realising the lists were different, as my old lists have the same names as the new ones. The only way to distinguish between them is the new icon. Facebook's list management tools don't make this easy to fix up.

> Guess who gets to see the pictures from the house party and who doesn't?

Google gets to see all of them. The proper way to compartmentalize is to actually compartmentalize.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com