4 ms·
I'd argue that Facebook defines content that's "public" in a way that some — perhaps many — would not, so it's a potential point of confusion. I don't consider
by ovao 9y ago
I'd argue that Facebook defines content that's "public" in a way that some — perhaps many — would not, so it's a potential point of confusion. I don't consider it evil, but it certainly results in a sort of Facebook-first inclusiveness. Gruber hits on this with Facebook's intent that posts not be indexable by search engines.
- tobyjsullivan 9y agoThis makes sense. I think it's an inherent challenge to the domain. In Facebook's defence, there is a difference between "public" and "discoverable". They don't go out of their way to make things discoverable. That's their business and may be evil or not depending on someone's given values. But "public" content on Facebook could potentially be seen by anyone - and that's staying true to the definition.