3 ms·

Why should Facebook remember the people I’ve cut off from my life? For one reason, so they aren’t recommended to you as a possible friend in the future. Seems

Why should Facebook remember the people I’ve cut off from my life? For one reason, so they aren’t recommended to you as a possible friend in the future. Seems like a minor thing to be upset about in a possibility space of major things.

phy6 9y ago
Seems reasonable. I can see the <insert perpetually outraged millennial news site> headline now: "An open letter to Facebook: How dare you recommended I be friends with my rapist"
- danso 9y ago
  To be fair, that situation sounds like one that would be better served by using the Block option, rather than just inference from the defriending action.
  - Klathmon 9y ago
    But that's still "data" that needs to be maintained for you.
    - tk75x 9y ago
      A "block" list is different from a "people you unfriended" list. I see the point of keeping track in order to not show those "on this day" posts of someone you want out of your life, but the block feature was made for that purpose and should be used for these situations.
      - abalone 9y ago
        I am overall critical of FB (see my top comment on the omission of search history) but in this case I can see this as a good faith design decision. Yes, ideally users should distinguish between: - "block" (keep track of them so they don't appear in your feed) - "unfriend" (erase the connection; they might reappear) But this also adds complexity which can lead to UX failures. Probably a lot of users were using "unfriend" when they really want to block someone. So then their abuser shows up in their memories and Facebook suggests they become friends or whatever and then there's a scandal because look how insensitive FB is. So the UX designer's choices then are, try to educate all your users about the distinction here and get victims to use a block -- which is not going to be 100% successful -- or err on the safe side and just make "unfriend" work more like a block. I can see them making the latter design decision in good faith, and maybe I would too. Note: It is very common in more technical circles like HN to just implicitly blame the user here for not understanding the options. I.e. if less than 100% of users understand "unfriend" is not a "block" then, well, they should pay more attention. (This is very common in security discussions.) But good UX design means owning the outcome and how users interact with your interface in the real world. And so simplicity often is the better route, even at the cost of some tradeoffs.
mrlala 9y ago
Yeah this whole article is pretty ridiculous, it's the most basic things. "Oh no, they tracked when I deactivated my account and reactivated it!?" "Oh no, they stored my contacts when I gave the messaging app permission to access my contacts" "Oh no, they keep track of ads I clicked on" If people want to freak out about something, freak out about the right things. It's baffling when people don't understand they track the most basic things..

phy6 9y ago

Seems reasonable. I can see the <insert perpetually outraged millennial news site> headline now: "An open letter to Facebook: How dare you recommended I be friends with my rapist"

danso 9y ago
To be fair, that situation sounds like one that would be better served by using the Block option, rather than just inference from the defriending action.
- Klathmon 9y ago
  But that's still "data" that needs to be maintained for you.
  - tk75x 9y ago
    A "block" list is different from a "people you unfriended" list. I see the point of keeping track in order to not show those "on this day" posts of someone you want out of your life, but the block feature was made for that purpose and should be used for these situations.
    - abalone 9y ago
      I am overall critical of FB (see my top comment on the omission of search history) but in this case I can see this as a good faith design decision. Yes, ideally users should distinguish between: - "block" (keep track of them so they don't appear in your feed) - "unfriend" (erase the connection; they might reappear) But this also adds complexity which can lead to UX failures. Probably a lot of users were using "unfriend" when they really want to block someone. So then their abuser shows up in their memories and Facebook suggests they become friends or whatever and then there's a scandal because look how insensitive FB is. So the UX designer's choices then are, try to educate all your users about the distinction here and get victims to use a block -- which is not going to be 100% successful -- or err on the safe side and just make "unfriend" work more like a block. I can see them making the latter design decision in good faith, and maybe I would too. Note: It is very common in more technical circles like HN to just implicitly blame the user here for not understanding the options. I.e. if less than 100% of users understand "unfriend" is not a "block" then, well, they should pay more attention. (This is very common in security discussions.) But good UX design means owning the outcome and how users interact with your interface in the real world. And so simplicity often is the better route, even at the cost of some tradeoffs.

mrlala 9y ago

Yeah this whole article is pretty ridiculous, it's the most basic things. "Oh no, they tracked when I deactivated my account and reactivated it!?" "Oh no, they stored my contacts when I gave the messaging app permission to access my contacts" "Oh no, they keep track of ads I clicked on" If people want to freak out about something, freak out about the right things. It's baffling when people don't understand they track the most basic things..