3 ms·

The FriendFeedization Of Facebook Continues: Bret Taylor Promoted To CTO

9 points by aditya 16y ago

thwarted 16y ago
I'll believe it when I see it. I find Friendfeed simple and Facebook complex. Facebook can't become more like Friendfeed without giving up what makes Facebook Facebook. Friendfeed is first for people who use the rest of Internet. Facebook is for people who only use Facebook and the rest of the Internet secondarily. It would be great if the Facebook news/activity feed worked liked Friendfeed, where highly active entries float to the top. So much good content gets buried on Facebook, since Facebook focuses on new entries, rather than ones that your network considers interesting (activity worthy, through comments and likes). I don't know what the system is by which Facebook decides to include things in the "Top News" list vs the "Most Recent", but the Top News is rarely fresh, the most interesting to me, or the most active. It would also be great if Facebook had the kind of quality of integration with other sites that Friendfeed has. On Facebook, everything needs to be an application, with its own permissions that one needs to worry about. This seems to overly complicate the action "insert this content into my stream" that RSS enables. I originally disagreed with Friendfeed reducing the prominence of where a piece of content came from by removing the service icons, but now I think this properly leads the focus to the item itself rather than the service that was used. But Friendfeed's content hiding ability is still fine-grained enough allow management by service. Friendfeed integrates with other sites through accepted standards, like RSS and Atom, or through a bookmarklet which the user controls. In order to integrate with Facebook, each website needs to be modified to work specifically with Facebook, which isn't portable to other social networking sites (which is, of course, in Facebook's best interest to lock you, and other websites, in).

9 points by aditya 16y ago

I'll believe it when I see it. I find Friendfeed simple and Facebook complex. Facebook can't become more like Friendfeed without giving up what makes Facebook Facebook. Friendfeed is first for people who use the rest of Internet. Facebook is for people who only use Facebook and the rest of the Internet secondarily. It would be great if the Facebook news/activity feed worked liked Friendfeed, where highly active entries float to the top. So much good content gets buried on Facebook, since Facebook focuses on new entries, rather than ones that your network considers interesting (activity worthy, through comments and likes). I don't know what the system is by which Facebook decides to include things in the "Top News" list vs the "Most Recent", but the Top News is rarely fresh, the most interesting to me, or the most active. It would also be great if Facebook had the kind of quality of integration with other sites that Friendfeed has. On Facebook, everything needs to be an application, with its own permissions that one needs to worry about. This seems to overly complicate the action "insert this content into my stream" that RSS enables. I originally disagreed with Friendfeed reducing the prominence of where a piece of content came from by removing the service icons, but now I think this properly leads the focus to the item itself rather than the service that was used. But Friendfeed's content hiding ability is still fine-grained enough allow management by service. Friendfeed integrates with other sites through accepted standards, like RSS and Atom, or through a bookmarklet which the user controls. In order to integrate with Facebook, each website needs to be modified to work specifically with Facebook, which isn't portable to other social networking sites (which is, of course, in Facebook's best interest to lock you, and other websites, in).