3 ms·
> With Facebook Messenger, everyone who has the app is always "online." Not exactly, FBM lets you differentiate between people who are "active", as in they are
by gh02t 9y ago
> With Facebook Messenger, everyone who has the app is always "online."
Not exactly, FBM lets you differentiate between people who are "active", as in they are currently using FBM, vs. "last seen x hours ago." The difference from AIM is that being active vs. inactive does not necessarily correspond to whether or not you are up for an engaged conversation, and also that you don't directly control your status since it's automatic. There is also a way to set yourself to appear offline, though it's kinda convoluted. I 100% agree though that finer controls over your status like back in the good old days of AIM would be really nice.
- pishpash 9y agoIt is not convoluted, just hidden. After you mention it I searched and it takes two clicks to get to. What it doesn't do is let you snoop. You are either active and see everyone who is active, or not active and don't see anyone who is active, a weird type of "fairness" that doesn't really make sense. All these social networks are definitely trying to use symmetry to push for engagement, which is not always the goal from the user's perspective.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- likelynew 9y agoI think a large part on why Truecaller is so successful is because of the same model. It is slightly worse, as by default a user is visible.
- skinnymuch 9y agoI'm not doubting it, but in what way is Truecaller so successful? Never heard of it.
- skinnymuch 9y agoWhy do you find the "fairness" not making sense? Seems to make sense to me. Telegram has the same feature for showing how many hours ago someone was active.