Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Facebook Ruined Comments (at Least For One Writer)

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the it's-always-winter-and-never-christmas dept.

Facebook 135

harrymcc writes "Back in late March, Facebook finally introduced a feature which lets you reply to a specific comment on an update. But at the same time, it started reshuffling the order of comments in an attempt to put the best ones at the top. The change only applies to Pages and to the Profiles of people with more than 10,000 followers, but it's driving me crazy. Over at TIME.com, I explain why."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

link in the article doesn't work (3, Informative)

prelelat (201821) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704029)

It didn't seem to work for me so I went to http://techland.time.com/2013/05/12 [time.com] and then was able to browse to the article.

Here's the actual link see if it works if you have issues http://techland.time.com/2013/05/12/facebook-comments/ [time.com]

Re:link in the article doesn't work (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704391)

It didn't seem to work for me so I went to http://techland.time.com/2013/05/12 [time.com] and then was able to browse to the article.

Here's the actual link see if it works if you have issues http://techland.time.com/2013/05/12/facebook-comments/ [time.com]

So you ride the short bus, eventually figured something out, and want to deprive your fellow "special" types of the same opportunity.

You know who else had things ruined? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704035)

The Boston Bomber victims. The three kidnapped girls. But never mind them, obviously your pain is greater. Please tell us more.

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704067)

True dat. All of the cares in my life have been overwhelmed by explosions that don't affect me, and have already been over-reported, and a case about kidnapped girls that are white enough that you know you will be hearing about them for the next year.

So there is absolutely no room whatsoever in my tiny heart, or my pea brain, not to mention my millisecond attention span, to possibly read anything else, ever. Get back to me next year... unless someone blows something up again or kidnaps some girls.

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (0)

DFurno2003 (739807) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704147)

Tell us how you really feel.

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704429)

and a case about kidnapped girls that are white enough that you know you will be hearing about them for the next year

Even psychotic criminals are too choosey to choose black girls!

Maybe it's the shitty frizzy nappy hair, the ugly flat noses, the bitchy boot-camp attitude, or the fact (FACT!) most of them are fat. Take your pick.

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704451)

Sure the media pays inordinate attention to kidnapped 'white grz'. But they also pay no attention to all the kidnappers rapists and drug dealers that are running around the USA, and who happen to NOT be white. What I am saying is if you commit a crime and you are white (and poor) you do the time. If you are an illegal immigrant or a member of the non-white minority who also happen to be the numerical majority, and do the crime the media will take a sympathic view towards your situation, because you are 'oppressed'.

So basically whites are the new niggers in the USA. If you make fun of a dude because he is a 'ginger' that is cool. But if you make a comment about someones 'nappy' hair you are a racists.

-Just saying The media is a double edged sword. The only thing you can do is turn off the tv. And only believe what you see is going on in your own community. In mine is is lot of drugs. Whites are pretty much cuckolded, but that is cool because they are white.

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704483)

Imagine what the media would be saying is some white dudes kidnapped three girls and held them in their basement for like 20 years, and the neighbors, nor the kids, nor the cops (who were called to the house on multiple occasions) knew anything about it (OMG). Every commedian would be having a field day with how crazy white people are and how they are all serial killers and shit. But in this case the kidnappers (pimps) happened to be hispanic, so race will not be an issue.

Re: You know who else had things ruined? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705159)

and that's why the prison population is disproportionally black or other minorities. what are you guys talking about really. whites are still a majority, still get away with lesser sentences then minorities and anything you see on TV that involves minorities is usually the exception not the rule. Racism is still the rule in the US as evident by these shallow, biast and misinformed replies.

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (3, Insightful)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704185)

Also, pity about the thousands of innocent victims (including women and children) killed by US drones in Pakistan. Oh but they aren't US citizens so that doesn't count, right?

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (1, Interesting)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704381)

They harbor terrorist the terrorist use them as shields. Why doe it happen so much in Pakistan? And why do the people of Pakistan allow it to happen? Its way too easy to blame someone else Pakistan needs to clean house but the Government of Pakistan doesn't seem to care much for its innocent Victims

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (2)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707489)

the US harbors terrorists too (not even counting those that work for the US government)... you gunna advocate blowing up innocent US women and children between drones and terrorists in the US?

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704461)

Also, pity about the thousands of innocent victims (including women and children) killed by US drones in Pakistan. Oh but they aren't US citizens so that doesn't count, right?

That might make the government look bad, so mainstream news downplays it or doesn't cover it at all. It's not something that makes front-page news.

They don't mind (often accurately) portraying the federal government as bumbling, incompetent, wasteful, etc. That's all in good fun and something of an American tradition. But the staggeringly high number of FIVE corporations who control all mainstream news, well they draw the line at showing the ways in which government are downright evil. Most of the media are Statists (Democrat flavor of it, but Statist), therefore for most of them, that would be blasphemous.

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (-1, Offtopic)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704853)

If Pakistan was concerned with its own people, they'd police their criminals, we wouldn't have to.

Do you want us to police the world or not? Pick one or the other and stop bitching about the US not doing both when it suits your whim.

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (5, Insightful)

Smauler (915644) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705433)

Do you want us to police the world or not?

Not. Please.

Seriously, do you and other people in the US really think they're the world's police, the last bastion for freedom, etc? Is this a common mentality?

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43706949)

As a US citizen, no on both counts. In fact a great percentage of people in the US aren't anything like other countries' citizens like to see us as. But as they say, morons are louder.

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707683)

Also, both (morons as those quiet) profit from the wealth pump that policing the world brings with it. So I am pretty sure I know why they shut up...

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708029)

No, it's the rest of the world that thinks this way. Remember the 1994 Rwandan genocide? America bore responsibility for this horrific crime. Why? They had the capability to intervene and stop the genocide, but selfishly did not do so. Note that it was not Americans who said this, but pretty much every member nation of the UN. They said it loudly, and repeatedly. Maybe you forgot, or have selective memory?

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (1)

Njovich (553857) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708245)

I think most were more annoyed by the American 'no it is not a genocide, so we don't have to interfere with it', the actively trying to prevent other countries from setting up a proper UN mission, and afterwards claiming to be the heroes. Anyway, it wasn't just the US that got flack there, France got a lot more flack. Anyway, it's a long time ago, hopefully lessons have been taken...

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708453)

And if America had said, "oh yes we must intervene immediately" the rest of the world would have pulled that "oh you meddling villains, stay out of affairs that don't concern you" and there would have been some sort of Blackhawk Down incident in Rwanda as well.

In these sorts of things, you start with the conclusion and work your way backwards: America is always wrong, so just justify it however it needs to be done. Intervene: bullies. Don't intervene: uncaring.

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (1)

Njovich (553857) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708927)

Did you even read my comment?

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707481)

only morons in the US want the US to police the world... the rest of the world wants the US to fuck off... always has, always will

Team America... World Bully

Re:You know who else had things ruined? (1)

julesh (229690) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708355)

The Boston Bomber victims. The three kidnapped girls. But never mind them, obviously your pain is greater. Please tell us more.

As a technical community, there is little we can do about events that occurred in the past short of inventing a time machine (and I think there would be worse atrocities to prevent than those if we did). But ongoing problems caused by short-sighted technical ideas are right up our street. They're things that are in our line of professional thought (for a large proportion of the community here) and that a few here might have direct influence over (don't try telling me none of facebook's dev team reads /., because I just won't believe you).

Yes, there are different levels of problems and some people always have it worse. But we shouldn't let that stop us addressing the smaller scale problems, because those are often the things that we can actually fix.

An Extremely Decent video on the subject (5, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704071)

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704133)

This needs more upvotes.

If you like that.... (2)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705147)

Then you must watch the Extremely Decent ad for The First Honest Cable Company [youtube.com]

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704181)

The clip is great. Here's what I don't get: WHY do people keep using that shit, when so many seem to hate it so much?

I hate broccoli. You know what? I don't eat it every day and then bitch about how horrible it is. Why would anyone keep using a service that they seem to dislike as much as they do?

Are they insane, or masochists, or what? I mean, it isn't like people were talking with other people, keeping up to date, and planning things to do together with friends, on the internet for decades before FB came along, or anything... Or is it that they believe they need a for-profit data-harvester in the middle, in order to talk to people?

Seriously, WTF?

O

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (-1, Troll)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704221)

This guy really needs to get a life. Seriously. Bitching about some new feature on Facebook?

WTF indeed.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704353)

>>This guy really needs to get a life. Seriously. Bitching about some new feature on Facebook?

Bitching aboot bitching on facebook's feature on a facebook article...

Either you're super meta joke man running on fumes...

Or a full of yourself egg laying hipster/moron mix...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0ZUgDwnUcg

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (3, Insightful)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704253)

prolly cos they just want to... i dunno... keep in touch with their friends and family. there used to be facebook for that

myspace died because it became popular as a simple social networking platform and then commercial interests took over and killed it

then facebook took over from where myspace failed

(peering into future some)

facebook died because it became popular as a simple social networking platform and then commercial interests took over and killed it

then the borg took over from where facebook failed

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704293)

prolly cos they just want to... i dunno... keep in touch with their friends and family. there used to be facebook for that

My phone is so amazing it lets me send my voice in real time to my family and friends. Even more amazing -- rather than posting to FB when they speak I hear the sounds right in my ear! If you had a cell phone that could make voice calls besides just FB then you would see how useless FB is.

I don't have a facebook account or ever bother with it and get along just fine without it. I keep in touch with everybody I want to keep in touch with using voice, SMS, and e-mail. I think that sufficiently covers the gamut from most real time to least real time enough for 99.9% of the worlds population.
 

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (4, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704505)

We get it, you don't have Facebook and feel the need to tell the world they don't need it either so that you can feel superior by being different.
I don't have cable TV, but I at least understand that some people feel that TV has value and thus subscribe to it so I'm not going to go around telling everyone that because I don't want TV they shouldn't want it either.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705839)

I don't have cable TV, but I at least understand that some people feel that TV has value and thus subscribe to it...

That's interesting because -
[commercial]Introducing the all new bell minnow insipidon, with 2Biggahertz Core Quan-Do combined with the latest soiled-stick-vibe, it's better than the sex you aren't getting. You haven't even been addicted to online gaming until you've seen the graphics from the jaw-sploding nVisceral FxU69007-GD, with eye twitching resolutions of up to 3.14159pi. You'll never even look at your depressing family again. Buy it now or else everyone will start laughing behind your back. It's your wake up Bell. *dum*-dum-dum*DUM*
[/commercial]
There is an odd connection between what crutchy said about commercial interests killing everything and current television -
[commercial](blue cloudy sky and green grass in a breeze, woman walks by with sadness in her eyes)Bingo manny hip hops dinga-ling, zoob. Norfapoc some people have tic-tac-toe, but some have flop. One in some have trouble to-wait-for, and some have one-in-not-long-for. Now there's help.
(disclaimer: mannyhipsadril-x may cause tur, blik and dif. Consult your pseudopharmacist before starting mannyhipsadril, and stop taking manny if you experience boom or deth as that may be a sign of serious side effects.) Ask your unsympathetic doctor about manny today, and experience the bling of a furlong you've been missing! Mannyhipsadril-Xetaplacebo made by Bald & Limpy Pharmaurmoney, LLC.
-
What you want from life is here. The all new and healthier kid-rationed menu at DonHerbergerling includes Bisby's all new poka-bionic toys from the show, movie and government sponsored musical! With several sharp ends for permanent eye trauma and two colored plastic, they're what kids are screaming for from their willing surrogates. Now you can know the joy of other, better people and buy nutritionally void pseudo-sex.
Stop by at DH, and get out!
[/commercial]
And because TV causes brain damage, rather than people getting annoyed and doing something else they actually just turn off their brain -
[commercial]
Buy shatty overpriced furniture! There's a sale, but we aren't even desperate yet. We have all the stuff that matches each microsecond trend, because we own all your friends, and fake magazines, and we killed any real competition by mutual shame and guilt. GIVE US MONEY and stop by for super savings.
-
(badly edited commercial, starting halfway through)
At 11 join us with the -we-care-about-suffering- news team. We'll surf the bowels of the internet blogosphere twitter space with our cloned team of men and women baby-boomers who know nothing about computers, but pretend to teach you second hand the things your five year old child already knows and does with other kids their age, when you're not locking them in your home.
Then coverage of the past news rating milestones, from ten years ago, about things that probably didn't affect you but have been blown out of all proportional until you can't help but cry for one reason or
(and the badly edited commercial abruptly ends)
-
* SCRESH TAGODA YODALU yall, scresh, scresh tagoda yall * You know her singing from TV, now buy it NOWWWWWWW! You voted, which means you practically sponsored her, and that obligates YOU. Do it or we will name you during the next show and post your photo at local prisons. Your spouse already suspects their absolute mind control has been broken, and ignoring us will be the final proof... * TA DA BLEE, FOReVALu Tow ToOoOoOoOoOo * ... Goat Bliff Amenial Cantry Superstars! Tuesdays at 7.
-
(and a brief flash of the badly edited news commercial)
-
Buy our foreign sounding awesome car. Just imagine being behind the wheel, given a hand-job by an exotic man-woman hybrid living inside the dashboard. It also comes equipped with four and a half wheels, painful rope-like seatbelts, several clip on microphones, turbo seat warmer, optional fake driving assistance, and a voice activated stereo that wont turn off except briefly when you scream at it making other motorists think you're actually singing along. Watch this video of scenic driving on winding roads (...) and don't imagine yourself sitting in rush hour traffic getting your junk punched by the dashboard mutant. Perhaps you're feeling angry, cold, and quiet but we know that deep in your monkey strong bowels you're a closet gorilla . Do what feels right and make a down payment at your local Bonda-GE dealer, with zero finance APR for the first month and several times more than you can afford later. It's a smart decision you'll enjoy for ten seconds and regret for the rest of your life, but unlike the institutionalized slavery of marriage this will kill you mercifully quick. Check out one today!
-
Introducing the all new bell minnow insipidon, with 2Biggahertz Core Quan-Do and the latest soiled stick vibe, it's better than life and all the nice things you pretend to have. The nVisceral FxU69007-GD, with eye twitching resolutions of up to 3.14159pi, will make you wet your pants spontaneously and gag if you see your own reflection on the screen. Don't let your kids find out you're obsolete, when they talk to those friends of theirs. If you don't have a sick feeling in your stomache just thinking about it, you should. And with zero year introductory variable interest and several fake warranties to chose from, you can't afford not to buy the minnow insipidon. What are you waiting for lamer, this is your wake up Bell. *dum*-dum-dum*DUM*
[/commercial]
Dragged through the agony of endless soul-sucking advertising, until the brief pleasure gleaned from some truly pointless TV program resumes.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707701)

holy shit dude! i've watched a fair amount of tv in my time but nowhere near enough to be able to come up with that!

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (3, Insightful)

pegasustonans (589396) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705877)

We get it, you don't have Facebook and feel the need to tell the world they don't need it either so that you can feel superior by being different.
I don't have cable TV, but I at least understand that some people feel that TV has value and thus subscribe to it so I'm not going to go around telling everyone that because I don't want TV they shouldn't want it either.

Clearly, people see value in communicating with friends/family in a casual environment. I understand that.

The issue for me is, to use the TV example, my TV doesn't compromise the privacy of my neighbors and acquaintances, Facebook does. I'm not on Facebook because the potential value there is outweighed by my privacy concerns with the service.

Unfortunately, my friends and family *are* on Facebook. This means, as family members share private photographs of me and talk about me on Facebook, my privacy is compromised even though I never agreed to it. This is the real issue here.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (2)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | about a year and a half ago | (#43706885)

Do you have a cellphone? Do you use smartphone apps? do you use google or other search engine? do you use an email service? Do you use an ISP? what software do you use? Do you monitor your outgoing connections? Do you wear hoodies in front of cameras when you enter commercial buildings?

All these things affect your privacy. You're arbitrarily deciding FB is not worth that "invasion" but trying to convince others that FB should objectively be excluded and is somehow radically different than all these other examples where you give up privacy is disingenuous.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707719)

Oh, come on! I do not deliberately upload any images about any family party or where I was the last 72hrs over the last weekend to google. Maybe they know that I searched something about that mountain nearby, maybe they even know which hotel I preferred. But they never *know for certain* that I was there. I can turn off cell phones, because it is during the weekend and I do not want to receive mails.

When someone from my relatives (which they never would, I am blessed) writes on fb "how was the trip to mt. something"? The engine knows I was there. Google may know that you are somewhere, but has no clue what you are up to. Facebook has always more accurate information, if they have it. Google is more splintered and where I live, the data from ISPs cannot be shared with other entities.

When a retailer knows by monitoring RFID in clothes or via surveillance that I enter the building is one thing, but facebook knows I was there and brought a yellow sweater if and because somebody else mentioned that.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43708797)

Cellphone. Yes. The carrier has the information.
Smartphone. No. I found out that the 'smart' parts are no longer usefull since I usually have a computer around / there are other people who have smartphones that can be used.
Google. Yes. But an anonymous session everytime the browser boots. No gmail so nothing that Google can find out.
Email service. Yes.
ISP. Yes. Sometimes behind a VPN tunnel.
Outgoing connections. No, I don't monitor them. Is that a problem?
Hoodies. No. The people behind the camera's have no other information about me. I'm not really concerned.

I'm also not on FB. Getting emails from FB that my picture was tagged while I was not on FB scared te c*** out of me.
I don't think they do this any more. That was clearly against the law btw.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (2)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707533)

Do your family and friends ever talk to their friends about you? If so then your privacy is compromised without your participation ... shall we ban conversation?

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (2)

jareth-0205 (525594) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708653)

You're right. "I don't have Facebook" has taken over from the "I don't even have a TV" as the cry of the superior elitist.

Re: An Extremely Decent video on the subject (1)

pseudofrog (570061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704743)

Wow! Congrats! [theonion.com]

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707057)

My phone is so amazing it lets me send my voice in real time to my family and friends.

Ugh, voice calls are intrusive, inefficient and interrupt my flow.

If I need information I'd rather someone e-mail me a one-liner 'train delayed, will arrive at 13:20 in Cologne' rather than calling me and starting the whole charade.

'Hey Hans, how are you?'
'Fine thanks! What's up?'
'Well I'm on the train and you won't believe this but a cow fell on the line. So...'

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707497)

a picture says a thousand words... so while we're posting photos on fb, you just keep talking

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704443)

prolly cos they just want to... i dunno... keep in touch with their friends and family.

What on earth makes you think you need Facebook to do that?

I've been "keeping in touch with friends and family" online for a long time before Facebook was even a gleam in Zucks eye.

Handy tip: you don't need Facebook to do that. It's bizarre to talk to people about it. It's like they live in some alternate reality where FB is the only way to communicate with people on the internet. It's not. It never was.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704471)

I've been "keeping in touch with friends and family" online for a long time before Facebook was even a gleam in Zucks eye

In fact, I still do so now, and I don't use Facebook.

Facepeople are delusional, AFAICT.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707555)

Facepeople are delusional, AFAICT

I don't use Facebook

since you don't use facebook, you probably can't tell very far how delusional facepeople really are

there are various ways of keeping in touch with friends and family, and facebook is just one of them.

there are also various ways to travel to work... i usually walk to work, so by your logic everyone who drives a car to work is delusional?

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43708585)

since you don't use facebook, you probably can't tell very far how delusional facepeople really are

Because the only way to interact with a faceperson is through facebook?

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705205)

"Oh, I forgot to invite you; everyone else we invited via the Facebook event."
"When Amanda told me you didn't have a Facebook account I almost declined the blind date. I mean, only sexual predators and social retards don't have a Facebook account."
"I posted all the baby photos on Facebook; I'm not going to post them somewhere else too."
"Dude, your wife friended her old boyfriend on Facebook, and they've been posting inappropriate stuff on each other's walls for a month."

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707569)

Handy tip: you don't need Facebook to do that. It's bizarre to talk to people about it. It's like they live in some alternate reality where FB is the only way to communicate with people on the internet. It's not. It never was.

handy tip: many people who use facebook also talk on the phone (it's totally amazing how they could, like, you know, use two means of communication, even at the same time! OMG!!!!)

but hey why in the world would anyone want to send a photo or web link and be able to talk to the person they sent it to? is that just plain stupid or what? duh!!! haven't these facetards heard of a FAX MACHINE!!!!

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705009)

> keep in touch with their friends and family

You are aware that you don't need to use FB for that, right?

Re: An Extremely Decent video on the subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43706791)

Sooo true! #yolo #ih8social

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707499)

photos

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43709349)

bluejays

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705075)

myspace died because it became popular as a simple social networking platform and then commercial interests took over and killed it

That can be said for all of the Internet.

The one true law of the Internet was, is, and should always be, that there are no laws.

The only reason for laws is that there is limited space and resources which people have to share. But on the Internet, there is unlimited virtual space and everyone can put up his own resources. Don't like it? Fork it! Works for any communication space. Infinitely.

So on the Internet, humans can go back to the natural form of organization called webs of trust. Without having to ever bash their heads in when they don't want to. The holy grail of a society.

Then came the businesses and non-digital-natives and they fucked everything up, by trying to force the Internet into their outdated systems, instead of integrating.
Suddenly we were supposed to have "laws" because they can't handle configuring a firewall or server. Suddenly sites were limited to physical regions. Suddenly you could not call somebody a "cum-guzzling uncle-fucker" anymore because he would be too insecure to just laugh and leave, but would whine and bitch and ... Suddenly services were centralized and comments were censored because some morons sued instead of just *forking*.

Eternal September was born.

I say we make a new Internet. With anons and webs of trust! Where the only laws are, that there are no laws, and no non-digital-natives.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705145)

Different AC here, but someone should really mod that up. It really explains why most (not all) of you who got here after, say, the mid to late 1980's really irritate the shit out of the rest of us, because you destroyed the original internet culture, a thing that could have been far more transformative of human society than this overcommercialzed overcontrolled overlitigated crapfest we now call "the internet".

Granted not everyone who got here after the Eternal September is like that. Plenty on slashdot aren't, even though they got here well after that terrible change. But enough are, certainly the vast legions of the clueless, to have totally overwhelmed the freedom of the old days with their desire for lockdown, control, and safety.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705397)

I say we make a new Internet. With anons and webs of trust! Where the only laws are, that there are no laws, and no non-digital-natives.

I wish you luck in finding a way to outrun the world.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705497)

Or just go back. The old places are still there, including new ones that are small enough. The web is not the internet, and Alexa's top 100 is not the web.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707523)

the law of the internet is that users will use what work and avoid what sucks, regardless of the price... call it common sense if you like... it's not always sensible, but it is common

just because this law doesn't suit corporations or the hippy freedom fighters doesn't mean the internet can't work

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704555)

I for one keep a facebook account simply for appearances. If I apply for a job or a prospective client is doing some simple checks on me one of the first places they look is facebook and keeping a simple clean looking profile available is minimal work. Also having one gives me the privilege to bitch and moan about it.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704909)

I for one keep a facebook account simply for appearances.

Then you're worrying too much about "appearances".

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (2)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43706413)

It has to do with what people really care about. This is the basic primitive that most of the major players in tech just don't get. As humans we crave some things and are willing to pay inordinate prices to get them. Zuckerberg gets this. Jobs got this. Google gets this. Intel, AMD, Microsoft, IBM, Dell, HP, Acer, Asus, Toshiba, Fujitsu, LG, Sony and Lenovo - they just don't.

People don't - and never did - give a flying fuck about the widget. What they cared about was how the widget helped them do what they wanted and needed to do, how it enabled and empowered them. At first it was about business but as compute became ubiquitous it became about common folk. People want external validation. They want to be admired and accepted. They want to feel more connected to the people they care about. Facebook gives them this without fear of rejection because Facebook has no "dislike" button. iOS gives them this, as they can Facetime with their loved ones at any time. They will buy widgets to be telepresent with their loved ones when they must be away, relieving a primary tension of modern life.

Once the tech got sufficient to provide this somebody was going to figure this out. Proper respect goes to Steve Jobs for figuring it out first, and Andy Rubin for being swift with the FOSS solution that looks to rule the world. I'd praise Zuckerberg for vision here too but I just can't bring myself to do that. He solved the problem then exploited it in the worst possible way.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | about a year and a half ago | (#43706875)

Well, you're reading those who hating so much, you're not reading those who use it because those who use it don't go all around slashdot complaining.

If you pay attention, we've been over this. In some places, FB (or any online service where people you know use) is an extremely practical way to contact be in touch with people (and later take that online interaction to, let's call it, real life) .

Now, the problems of privacy and all that shit are big but, at this point, human culture has basically stated they crap on privacy and will upload YOUR photos without your consent wether you want it or not. If you're not registered to these services, you'll still be in them, but you just won't know it.

What one can do is take the time to deal with these needlessly complex and open by default settings and set things to your liking. And not use whatever you find wrong.

I don't use facebook apps, I don't upload phots of myself (Except the odd profile photo), most things to max, I try to separate groups and keep things separate, etc.

It's not necessary but it's convinient (same as email, cellphones, cellphone apps and so many other tech things that where our privacy is definitively not the first concern).

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704223)

mod up parent... i know its just a youtube video... but it's short and very... err... sympathetic :)

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705065)

Facebook updates in real life. [youtube.com]

It's not just a good satire of Facebook. They also got their finger on the irritating tone of present-day consumer-oriented advertising and communications- the faux-chummy, informal, first-names social-media-era style of a corporation pretending to be our best friend. The "Facebook" guy in the video is this personified.

This post isn't specifically about Facebook, though. It's about a far more general trend that's become common in the past decade or so, and particularly the past five years.

The video even got the now-cliched "chummy" guitar and whistling music in the background down pat. An integral part of setting the tone, it now no longer evokes the whimsical, innocent, non-threatening, honest, informal, friendly feel that it's intended to, but has become tainted by association as being manipulative and overused and just as corporate, irritating, phoney and dishonest as previous advertising cliches- ironically, the very associations it was originally meant to dispel. (Well, at least in my opinon- they wouldn't still be using it if everyone thought that).

Ever notice the wording on dialogue boxes that pop up for (e.g.) updating Adobe Flash? You can select "Update Now" or "Remind Me Later". Google do this as well. Lots of companies do it. You're given two responses, often phrased in an informal, friendly manner- but you are *not* given the one that says "No, Thank You". You're put in the position of "replying" to the question in the same faux-friendly manner, and on the terms that suit *them*- it helps them gloss over the fact they're railroading you into the pretence of making a particular "choice", when the real choice most people would make isn't there.

And, make no bones about it, this isn't an oversight- the choice isn't there because it doesn't suit them. Google (for example) are ever more passive-aggressively pushing people into using their "real" identities, bit-by-bit. At present, they still allow some leeway, but present the user with a weaselish, pre-approved list of "reasons" for not changing their name that don't include "because I like to remain anonymous" or anything similar. You're clearly- but implicitly rather than explicitly- made to think about things from the point of view that *they* would like you to. The implication is that those are the only valid reasons for not wanting to surrender more of your privacy to Google, and there's no reason for them to even nudge people in the direction of considering privacy as a legitimate concern if they haven't already started doing so.

Just like "Facebook's" false aimiability in the video phrases itself in terms of "helping" and "improving" the end-user's experience, whether that's the case or not, and without giving them a say in the matter.

In general, this is- as always- just the latest trend in manipulating people, but grates particularly because they're trying to use down-to-earth, informal, would-be-friendliness to do it.

Weasels.

Well.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704083)

I was going to make a comment how by merely using Facebook you are crazy but that world be false.

By using Facebook you are an idiot, the crazy is irrelevant.

Re:Well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43706905)

Really? This is insightful? +3?

"You're an idiot because you use a service, hurr, durr" "apple bad!" "ms bad!" "Unity bad!!!"

Trolls and imbeciles will be so but why do mods mod up a fucking AC for just an insult is beyond me.

Ok (1, Insightful)

trifish (826353) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704093)

Relax. It will go away soon. Like, MySpace, or any other fad in the past...

Re:Ok (2)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704207)

Relax. It will go away soon. Like, MySpace, or any other fad in the past...

Then why is MySpace still around and why do I still see MySpace IDs being referenced in stuff like newly designed restaurant menus?

Re:Ok (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704327)

It's one of those retro fads, like those new '50's style diners.

Re:Ok (4, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704345)

Because some businesses don't want to lose even 1% of potential customers. That's why you see Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. everywhere.

I just wish companies would put up pages for their own products on their own website instead of telling us to learn more at "facebook.com/product/".

Re:Ok (3, Informative)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | about a year and a half ago | (#43706259)

Why make your own website when you can use a free page on Facebook? You don't have to hire a designer or any other internet related things and by default you get an interface that almost every customer is familiar with.

Re:Ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43707937)

Aaaaand the surveillance behind it is usable by any marketing guy. Crunching log files from a webserver is much harder, even if there are programs like google adverts.

Re:Ok (1)

6Yankee (597075) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708061)

Especially when they're a university, trying to sell you a Master's in IT with a strong emphasis on Web development...

Re:Ok (1)

Chuq (8564) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704565)

Then why is MySpace still around and why do I still see MySpace IDs being referenced in stuff like newly designed restaurant menus?

... you do?! Really?

Time for new Facebook competitor? (1)

tonywestonuk (261622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704329)

Facebook's changes are pissing off its users....the same people who put them in the dominant position it is in now.

The thing about facebook though, it isn't like Ebay, where a critical mass of people have no choice to stay. They are free to go elsewhere.....and will as soon as another competitor shows up that offeres a better experience. In my opinion, the time for this to happen is imminent.

Re:Time for new Facebook competitor? (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704515)

Facebook's changes are pissing off its users....the same people who put them in the dominant position it is in now.

I don't believe this is so.

I think Facebook is pissing of Techies and the Uber Cool but that the "average" Facebook user is still quite happy.

Maybe some of these Super Cool Proto Users should take another look at Google+ which as evolved into something very similar to the "original" Facebook. Of course you will not be able to validate your sad life with 100's of "friends" whom you really don't know and have never met in person...

Not many people inhabit Google+ yet but if they don't kill it off like so many of their "projects", it will be the natural transition when Facebook becomes passe by the normal non-Uber Cool Proto Users.

Re-sort to "Most Recent" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704573)

Aaaaa...

You know you can re-sort to "Most Recent"? Takes it back to the old way.

Comments are ordered backwards, even on /. (1, Informative)

Karganeth (1017580) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704679)

Re:Comments are ordered backwards, even on /. (2)

isorox (205688) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704761)

Your link states
The philosophy of a design should be to minimize the amount of time a user has to learn the interface and try to be as similar as possible to other interfaces the user has used previously to avoid getting mixed up from time to time.

OK, don't do anything new, copy other interfaces. Great

It then goes on to say:

Almost all websites are like this.

So what it's saying in the second statement is that the standard - new items first - is ubiquitous. The first statement it states this is good. I fail to see the problem.

Re:Comments are ordered backwards, even on /. (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705193)

The struggle between ease of adoption and power of use is an endless one. There are options that seek to avoid the strife by optimizing for the least of each, which is a pathological solution (this is a technical term) to the problem. Example: Windows 8.

On my /. the oldest comments are first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704911)

[link that says that comments should appear oldest to newest]

I'd share how to make slashdot comments appear oldest to newest, but I don't remember how I did it. Maybe there's a setting for it somewhere? Interestingly, I'm pretty sure that it shows oldest to newest even before I log in.

Re:Comments are ordered backwards, even on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705407)

No. That guy is an idiot.

Re:Comments are ordered backwards, even on /. (2)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | about a year and a half ago | (#43706913)

So you've probably hate The Guardian's Live Blogging.

It's not about reviewing EVERYTHING, it's about the latest. If you're really interested, you can scroll down and move up.

I don't really see the average user struggling with this.

Re:Comments are ordered backwards, even on /. (1)

HJED (1304957) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707671)

With comments it makes it very hard to follow a conversation, especially as the behaviour is inconsistent so you don't realise that the comment that dosen't make sense is actually in reply to the comment 5 comments below it.

God Help us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704721)

Jesus, get a life. Stop trying to get pageviews

Let me guess why (1)

Artifex (18308) | about a year and a half ago | (#43704819)

It's because it's harder to tell when there are new comments in a thread, so conversations fragment.

Nothing at all like pretending to start a topic here, just to try to get us to click on your link to continue, right? :)

Boo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43704939)

Fucking
Hoo.

Re: newsweek comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705217)

Like i said in my previous post here: anyone who understands how magazine subscriptions work, would also know about the use of the model among certain high tech startups (which i wont bother repeating the names of here, as i already listed them elsewhere). also, does anyone know if the Slashdotter who referenced the Biafran war was being facetious or not?

PS, thank god that slashdot keeps posts in chronological order, otherwise i think my post here would make no sense at all!

sunk capital kissed by caprice (0)

epine (68316) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705489)

First "I do", then 10,000 followers fill his shoe, then pussy-whipped and Zucker-punched. He should have ended his complaint by confessing that he feels so ruthlessly dis-empowered he hasn't had a decent erection in three weeks.

"At least for one writer" (3, Insightful)

Brucelet (1857158) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705879)

Well I'm glad Slashdot headlines are at least becoming honest about the substance-free stories we've been seeing lately.

FailzYors!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43706331)

tubgi8l (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43706853)

distende3. All I [goat.cx]

Your mistake... (1)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707155)

Your mistake is expecting much of anything from facebook. The sooner we all move to Diaspora where control isn't ceded to someone with a vested interest in selling ad space, the better.

Timelines vs Forums (1)

Mandrel (765308) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707539)

The article is talking about how it's now harder to follow the discussion around a Facebook post because Facebook is re-ordering the replies based on their assessment of their quality. This could be easily remedied by adding sort-by-time and sort-by-quality buttons.

There's another more fundamental problem with Facebook as a venue for non-trivial discussion:

Many sites are shutting down their forums and moving comments to their Facebook pages. I suppose their thinking is that the (mostly) real names cut down the work needed for spam and troll moderation, and there's built in mechanisms to push-propagate and virally spread their content. But Facebook's approach that places posts by both page owners and page users on timelines removes the ability of topics to bump, meaning that conversations around still-interesting posts unnaturally trail away.

Slashdot is similar — discussion is always moving on, there isn't the structure nor the features that would allow extended discussion on a story. Story comments are even locked after a few weeks, probably as an anti-spam device, but this could be remedied with pre-moderation of posts by low-karma posters by either discussion participants or the whole Slashdot community.

First post! (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707545)

Well it worked on Facebook!

I don't get it. (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#43707793)

I don't understand. How does an organization as big as Time not have the resources to just write their own comment/forum/whatever system? Whatever happened to this? Every fucking site uses Facebook or Disqus, now. Rolling your own is trivial and strips you of dependence on third parties and lets you retain the data.

Also, who are all of these idiots posting on articles and things, via Facebok, using their real name and saying the most vile and horrible shit. Are they seriously this stupid?!

Re:I don't get it. (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708571)

They used to have their own system. Sister sites CNN and Money used to too, but they switched to Facebook and later to Disqus (no reason was given why they dumped Facebook).. Someone must have seen some "savings" in outsourcing vs. keeping it in-house.

Facebook Shuffling Comments (1)

Alsee (515537) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708019)

Basically: shuffling all the comments on one item is like cutting up a movie script, mixing up the dialogue and expecting it to still make sense.

Facebook is turning into a David Lynch movie.
For those unfamiliar with David Lynch movies, Rabbits. [youtube.com]

-

Gleefully Counting Nails (1)

some old guy (674482) | about a year and a half ago | (#43708209)

Google analysts are no doubt watching the FB decline and making comparissons to Yahoo, MySpace, et al.

We'll soon have an answer to the question, "How many nails does it take to seal a social network coffin?"

That still leaves open the question of what sort of nails. How many nails are bollocksed user interface features, like this one, and how many are an overabundance of marketing crappola?

Aye, there's the rub.

Who reads comments? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43708371)

Comments are write-only anyway - no one reads them - maybe one or two at the top get some attention, but they're mostly write-only.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?