likewise, if Facebook chooses to saturate their pages with images they know are generally poorly shot, you are allowed to question Facebook's ability to dress itself.
a. Facebook does not get to choose what photos get uploaded
b. Facebook knows the overwhelming majority of these photos are of poor quality
as such, it would be short sighted for Facebook to incorporate a design which relied so heavily on shitty user generated photos.
The point is, the new layout discussed here relies in some way on the pictures being not shitty. The discussion here is about a layout for content that is not under Facebook's control.
every photo on Facebook is user generated. an overwhelming majority of them are bad photos. Facebook is completely aware of this.
as such, it would be an irresponsible design choice for Facebook to create such a huge presence for those photos, like the design proposal does. likewise, it is irresponsible of the proposal author to only use high resolution stock photos of decent looking people for their design.
perhaps my original post was not crystal clear. in retrospect i maintain that it was a fine explanation, albeit terse- and out of context given my misinterpretation. regardless of my post's clarity, your response makes you sound like a dick.
I respectfully submit that had what you meant to say been so clear, or had you followed your own advice to "read both posts carefully", perhaps you wouldn't have made the mistake twice.