4 ms·
If their PR department influences their engineers to implement features that I want, good for them. I'm not inclined to care which part of the organization made
by moultano 16y ago
If their PR department influences their engineers to implement features that I want, good for them. I'm not inclined to care which part of the organization made the proposal.
- jacquesm 16y agoI think it's simple, facebook needed a good strategy because of all the shit that hit the fan in the recent past, so they put a fresh new face on it and spread the love of openness where they can afford it. I'm fine with it, download or not it doesn't change my view of them. Any company that has that kind of information at its disposal is to be treated with caution.
- andreyf 16y agoCan't one treat faceook with caution and at the same time, enjoy their services, and sing their praises? I often praise entities while maintaining quite cautionate.
- lwhi 16y agoI think Facebook probably is trying to quell critics, rather than become more culturally open on a wider scale. A disingenuous response is usually designed as a full stop, rather than way to carry on a conversation. If they're truly into the idea of promoting user-ownership of data, there will be more done to allow it (i.e. this will be first step).
- moultano 16y agoSure, but isn't the purpose of critics to be quelled?
- lwhi 16y agoI think I understand what you mean: a critic generally wants to have his or her point of view understood and acted upon, to which you could conclude that they might ultimately want to be able to be silent. EDIT: maybe I didn't understand what you mean ;) However, I'd argue that a single act is really just a grand gesture. To expect to silence critics with such a gesture is unrealistic - and doesn't do anything to positively resolve the issues involved with any cause worth fighting for. The privacy issues that Facebook might need to address are deep and wide ranging. Facebook instigates cultural change - it's the nature of that change which should be up for debate.
- lwhi 16y agoNo: the purpose of a critic is to provide critical insight - having criticism silenced is not part of that purpose.
- moultano 16y agoIf they don't want their criticisms acted upon, why are they criticizing?
- lwhi 16y agoOkay, to a degree I'm playing semantics .. but silencing an opinion isn't the same as reaching a resolution. To 'quell' suggests a pointed action, which puts the purpose of quietening the critic's voice, above resolving the critic's concern.