Hacker News Reader

Comment by ssully | Hacker News Reader

That's a nice link bait title on the Post's part. I thought it was going to be along the lines of privacy invasion, but it's actually giving the user more granular control over their content. That's good. But I forgot that any kind of change to Facebook is supposed to cause an uproar, so I guess the post is trying to get that crowd going.

Also I love the off screen cellphone picture of the new drop down menu. It really adds to context to the writers commitment to getting a good story.

View on HN

Except for this bit:

> Facebook is testing a pop-up notification that asks users who haven't reviewed their settings in a while whether they'd like their posts to be shared publicly by default, to their friends by default or another more specific setting.

I feel this is an attempt to get those of us only sharing with friends to reconsider sharing publicly.

It's possible, but my profile is set to "Share with everyone" and I still got a notification a few weeks ago asking me whether I wanted to change mine back to "Share only with friends", so I wouldn't assume the worst.

Mine was set to public, too, and I didn't actually realize it because it had been so long (a couple years?) since I had posted anything. When I was editing a post, I was prompted to review the settings ... and I changed it to "friends only". I appreciated the notification.

> You might suspect this is actually a clumsy attempt on Facebook’s part to get people to change their settings from “friends” to “public.” But it isn’t, at least for now: A Facebook spokesman told me the only people seeing the pop-up box in the current test are those who are already posting publicly on Facebook.

Source: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/25/facebook_...

What makes you think that?

The Privacy Dinosaur is only for users who are currently posting to Public by default, it reminds them of that fact and educates them on the different settings. It's been rolling out to select users for a couple of weeks now[1]

[1]: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/25/facebook_...

I edited it to tone down the linkbait. If anyone suggests a better title, I'll change it again.

dang, as per the HN guidelines, I always try and submit with the title of the page I'm submitting...even if it's link baity. Is that still the desired guideline or should we do something else?

Hi bane. The guidelines say "use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait" (emphasis added). As far as I know, they've always said that. So yep, delinkbaitification is welcome.

Okay, I'll try and supply some better titles and hopefully make the mods' lives a little easier.

Here are the principles I follow:

1. Make the minimal change necessary;

2. Use language that's already there.

By "already there" I mean not adding words of one's own choosing, but drawing on the existing titles and headings or, if need be, the first sentence of the article.

That being said, I do wonder what has happened to Mark Zuckerberg's opinion on privacy since the early days of Facebook.

There is still no full on private mode

What do you mean by 'full on private mode'?

You can set the privacy for anything you post to 'only me' (which is about as private as it gets, in a way), though I suspect that's not what you have in mind.

FaceDiary?

Friends only.

Not friends of friends for some stuff etc. FB allows you to search for people etc. Realistically, I should just start using something like Path.

it's actually giving the user more granular control over their content*

Granular control is used by what % of people? Experience tells me to watch for a bait and switch from Facebook, if not this update, the next one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com