6 ms·

The problem with linking to Facebook posts is that non-Facebook users are now greeted with a "sign in or sign up" pop-over that cannot be removed and obstructs

by exodust 10y ago

The problem with linking to Facebook posts is that non-Facebook users are now greeted with a "sign in or sign up" pop-over that cannot be removed and obstructs the page. This is a relatively recent change. Facebook do not want to be part of the open web, so don't link to them as if they are.

captn3m0 10y ago
I have a tiny css snippet that hides the nagbar for me: https://github.com/captn3m0/.css/blob/master/facebook.com.css#L89-L92 https://github.com/captn3m0/.css/blob/master/facebook.com.cs...
RKearney 10y ago
This is a public wall post by the creator of Lavabit himself. Would you rather a random third party news site pick it up first before it is reposted here? I see no problem with Facebook posts if they were created by an authoritative representative of the discussion and that was the primary point of publication (i.e. not a Facebook post pointing to their blog, in which case their blog would be a better place to link to.)
- exodust 10y ago
  Yep and there is nothing wrong with a public wall post up until 2016 when Facebook decided to restrict read-access to those public pages by way of the annoying nag prompt. Clicking "not now" doesn't hide the nag prompt enough to call the page 'publicly accessible'. Sorry to be off-topic on this, but I feel Facebook is quite arrogant with this behavior, as their users should be in control of the public status of their posts, not Facebook.
  - jklinger410 10y ago
    You're stretching the definitions of "read-access" and "publicly accessible." The word you're looking for is "annoying" which is already implied by "nag prompt."
    - exodust 10y ago
      Blocking content deliberately is an accessibility issue, solved only by signing up to Facebook. Not cool when all I wanted to do was read some words, not "use Facebook".
      - jklinger410 10y ago
        The content is still entirely readable. I'm not arguing that it's not annoying, I'm just saying you're over-exaggerating.
        exodust 10y ago
        Yeah probably, but then again "entirely readable" is generous considering on my laptop screen 30+% of the page is covered needlessly by a panel with no dismiss button. "Public post" redefined to mean 30% less screen layout than only a few months ago. You could look at it that way... 2016 rolls in and quietly, Facebook reduces your web publish layout area by 30% without word. If member I'd be asking what's up with that. Answer might be that you are not CEO of your own contributions on fb.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    I'm opening this in incognito mode and have no trouble reading it. We have a different definition of publicly accessible. You can block the annoying nag prompt with your ad blocker. I'm as upset at facebook as you are, but misleading people into not linking to an original source is a shitty thing to do.
    - ominous 10y ago
      I don't see it as shitty. It is simply not complying with the modus operandi of the owner of the original source (facebook). I'd rather see http://archive.is/ffjTe http://archive.is/ffjTe or even an image than to be reminded that facebook wants to be the gatekeeper of content. I do block these pop ups when I can (ublock). But that means you want the average user (not using blacklists, not using whitelists, not even using adblockers) to be reminded that he should login so as not to feel like a criminal. Oh wait. The average user has a facebook account and is always logged in. I am not the average user, I am a specific person.
      - kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
        > It is simply not complying with the modus operandi of the owner of the original source (facebook). The authors intent is irrelevant. They are a monetized product sold to advertisers. Facebook will never act against its own interest of maximizing the size and salability of its graph network.
        ominous 10y ago
        > Facebook will never act against its own interest of maximizing the size and salability of its graph network. Agreed. What I meant to say is, if we don't like the agressive behaviour of "facebook acting in its own interest to maximize the size and salability of its graph network", we shouldn't link to facebook URLs.
balls187 10y ago
Click "not now" Right click the persistent banner and select "inspect element" (YMMV on Browser choice). Set "display: none" for the element's css.
- exodust 10y ago
  Yes I know there are ways to technically work around their walled garden annoyances, but the principle is more important. The fundamental function of a web link from one page to another should not involve nagging to register or sign in for a service which boasts "free and always will be". I don't think most FB users and business pages are aware that their "public" posts and pages are now obscured by sign-up nag sliders.
  - mcphage 10y ago
    Isn't the ability to manipulate the page as we need despite what the server sends, one of the reasons that the "open" web such an important goal?
  - mostafah 10y ago
    Yeah, this is bad. > I don't think most FB users and business pages are aware that their "public" posts and pages are now obscured by sign-up nag sliders. Unfortunately, I guess most FB users would be more surprised that some people don’t have a Facebook account, not that they are greeted with a signup window.
  - balls187 10y ago
    Fair point. I was just providing a relatively simple solution to "...pop-over that cannot be removed and obstructs the page."
toomuchtodo 10y ago
http://archive.is/ffjTe http://archive.is/ffjTe
jrockway 10y ago
I adblocked that element a long time ago. Doesn't cause me any trouble anymore.
captainmuon 10y ago
How is that worse than posting a paywalled link? That annoys me much more...
- rvense 10y ago
  Isn't it sort of a paywall? Facebook wants your precious eyeballs, or whatever hoodoo it is they deal in.
nederdirk 10y ago
https://mbasic.facebook.com/KingLadar/posts/10157136844775038 https://mbasic.facebook.com/KingLadar/posts/1015713684477503... works, even if logged out :)
sandworm101 10y ago
Disable scripts from facebook.com and the OP reads fine.
- spacehome 10y ago
  Noscript ftw

by exodust 10y ago

captn3m0 10y ago

I have a tiny css snippet that hides the nagbar for me: https://github.com/captn3m0/.css/blob/master/facebook.com.css#L89-L92 https://github.com/captn3m0/.css/blob/master/facebook.com.cs...

RKearney 10y ago

This is a public wall post by the creator of Lavabit himself. Would you rather a random third party news site pick it up first before it is reposted here? I see no problem with Facebook posts if they were created by an authoritative representative of the discussion and that was the primary point of publication (i.e. not a Facebook post pointing to their blog, in which case their blog would be a better place to link to.)

exodust 10y ago
Yep and there is nothing wrong with a public wall post up until 2016 when Facebook decided to restrict read-access to those public pages by way of the annoying nag prompt. Clicking "not now" doesn't hide the nag prompt enough to call the page 'publicly accessible'. Sorry to be off-topic on this, but I feel Facebook is quite arrogant with this behavior, as their users should be in control of the public status of their posts, not Facebook.
- jklinger410 10y ago
  You're stretching the definitions of "read-access" and "publicly accessible." The word you're looking for is "annoying" which is already implied by "nag prompt."
  - exodust 10y ago
    Blocking content deliberately is an accessibility issue, solved only by signing up to Facebook. Not cool when all I wanted to do was read some words, not "use Facebook".
    - jklinger410 10y ago
      The content is still entirely readable. I'm not arguing that it's not annoying, I'm just saying you're over-exaggerating.
      - exodust 10y ago
        Yeah probably, but then again "entirely readable" is generous considering on my laptop screen 30+% of the page is covered needlessly by a panel with no dismiss button. "Public post" redefined to mean 30% less screen layout than only a few months ago. You could look at it that way... 2016 rolls in and quietly, Facebook reduces your web publish layout area by 30% without word. If member I'd be asking what's up with that. Answer might be that you are not CEO of your own contributions on fb.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  I'm opening this in incognito mode and have no trouble reading it. We have a different definition of publicly accessible. You can block the annoying nag prompt with your ad blocker. I'm as upset at facebook as you are, but misleading people into not linking to an original source is a shitty thing to do.
  - ominous 10y ago
    I don't see it as shitty. It is simply not complying with the modus operandi of the owner of the original source (facebook). I'd rather see http://archive.is/ffjTe http://archive.is/ffjTe or even an image than to be reminded that facebook wants to be the gatekeeper of content. I do block these pop ups when I can (ublock). But that means you want the average user (not using blacklists, not using whitelists, not even using adblockers) to be reminded that he should login so as not to feel like a criminal. Oh wait. The average user has a facebook account and is always logged in. I am not the average user, I am a specific person.
    - kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
      > It is simply not complying with the modus operandi of the owner of the original source (facebook). The authors intent is irrelevant. They are a monetized product sold to advertisers. Facebook will never act against its own interest of maximizing the size and salability of its graph network.
      - ominous 10y ago
        > Facebook will never act against its own interest of maximizing the size and salability of its graph network. Agreed. What I meant to say is, if we don't like the agressive behaviour of "facebook acting in its own interest to maximize the size and salability of its graph network", we shouldn't link to facebook URLs.

balls187 10y ago

Click "not now" Right click the persistent banner and select "inspect element" (YMMV on Browser choice). Set "display: none" for the element's css.

exodust 10y ago
Yes I know there are ways to technically work around their walled garden annoyances, but the principle is more important. The fundamental function of a web link from one page to another should not involve nagging to register or sign in for a service which boasts "free and always will be". I don't think most FB users and business pages are aware that their "public" posts and pages are now obscured by sign-up nag sliders.
- mcphage 10y ago
  Isn't the ability to manipulate the page as we need despite what the server sends, one of the reasons that the "open" web such an important goal?
- mostafah 10y ago
  Yeah, this is bad. > I don't think most FB users and business pages are aware that their "public" posts and pages are now obscured by sign-up nag sliders. Unfortunately, I guess most FB users would be more surprised that some people don’t have a Facebook account, not that they are greeted with a signup window.
- balls187 10y ago
  Fair point. I was just providing a relatively simple solution to "...pop-over that cannot be removed and obstructs the page."

toomuchtodo 10y ago

http://archive.is/ffjTe http://archive.is/ffjTe

jrockway 10y ago

I adblocked that element a long time ago. Doesn't cause me any trouble anymore.

captainmuon 10y ago

How is that worse than posting a paywalled link? That annoys me much more...

rvense 10y ago
Isn't it sort of a paywall? Facebook wants your precious eyeballs, or whatever hoodoo it is they deal in.

nederdirk 10y ago

https://mbasic.facebook.com/KingLadar/posts/10157136844775038 https://mbasic.facebook.com/KingLadar/posts/1015713684477503... works, even if logged out :)

sandworm101 10y ago

Disable scripts from facebook.com and the OP reads fine.

spacehome 10y ago
Noscript ftw