4 ms·

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 se

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.

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.