4 ms·
Whether or not a post is available to "the public" (signed in or not) is completely the choice of the author, not some mysterious committee at Facebook.
by mcpherrinm 10y ago
Whether or not a post is available to "the public" (signed in or not) is completely the choice of the author, not some mysterious committee at Facebook.
- rmtew 10y agoHave you tried to read a page on facebook without an account? It's intended to be an almost unusable experience. On loading a page, I get a modal popup obscuring all content insisting I "register" or "login", with a "not now" option. Then when you click "not now", the bottom third of the screen is obscured by a fixed overlay. It is loosely describable as readable, but in practice, it's a fight to read it. The element has randomly generated id, so can't easily be blocked with ublock or similar.
- tmsbrg 10y agoI agree Facebook is a bad place for placing public content. Note though that it's currently a lot more bearable if you disable JavaScript for Facebook. As someone who doesn't use Facebook at all it's easy for me to keep it disabled with NoScript. Then I just see content, no popups.
- xxs 10y agoindeed: inspect element -> style='display: none' should not be mandatory to read a page. Grease monkey is an option, but still.
- intoverflow2 10y agoIt's coded in react or whatever so it just gets recreated a second or so later.
- zdkl 10y agoAnd what happens when facebook decides otherwise? Because it seems they already have with their strategy of curating content and information to maximise engagement.