7 ms·

Facebook allows Force Joining of Groups

61 points by feint 16y ago

wccrawford 16y ago
Why does Facebook have such a history of bad decisions like this? I -just- rejoined Facebook yesterday due to the fact that I seemed to be missing out on too many opportunities by boycotting it, and my 6-month-long boycott has made absolutely no dent in their popularity.
- Tichy 16y ago
  Can you list some of the opportunities? I have an account, but no idea what to do with it.
  - lliiffee 16y ago
    As a facebook non-joiner myself, I find that I miss out on a lot of baby pictures, knowledge of other people's birthdays, and (a few) parties.
    - quattrofan 16y ago
      I would regard that as a benefit.
      - lliiffee 16y ago
        That reminds me of another effect: I am thought of as a person that regards missing these things as a benefit!
  - khafra 16y ago
    For me, it's timely knowledge of friends doing things I might want to join in on, keeping up with a few groups and organizations that post things there, and cheaply signalling my affiliation with just about anything by joining a group named after it. I also found a great band called "The 21st Century Monads" because I was looking through famous people's profiles, and it's the only music group on David Chalmers' page.
  - scott_s 16y ago
    I have some friends who use FB as their main means of communication. Instead of firing on a quick email to them, I send it on FB.
    - moshezadka 16y ago
      While it's not my primary means of communications, my Facebook account gets near 0 spam (both literal spam and "mailing lists which are fairly boring but every now and again I should check") which means that while I made everything else in my smartphone just give a little "pop" sound, Facebook messages (and SMSs) actually make a "pring-pring" (more noticeable) sound -- if my Facebook mailbox has something in it, there's a high likelihood it's a real person, needing something real from me (and there's a high likelihood that I want to give them that, since I actually know them...) My point: It's actually rational to assume FB messages are more valuable, and given people who do that, it's equally rational to send them messages on FB :)
      - scott_s 16y ago
        Oh, I agree. Some people just see FB was a means to communicate and don't bother worrying about how cool/uncool it is.
  - wccrawford 16y ago
    A friend of a friend offered me an opportunity recently for some development. They (who own the business) are big into Facebook and that the the first method of contact that they offered. It's not a huge money-making opportunity, but it's the first step towards a path I've been wanting to take for quite some time. It's not that I'm mining Facebook for jobs any more than I mine my phone for jobs... It's that by boycotting it, I cut off a means of contact that others might prefer. (And I could also appear childish or out-of-touch as well.)
    - Tichy 16y ago
      Nothing against communicating via Facebook, if that is your thing. But it is definitely not childish to not communicate via Facebook. Boycott is too strong, perhaps, but if you simply see no use for it. Personally I am just old fashioned in that way, I still run my own email server. I don't feel too happy about my communications belonging to some mega corporation. Also, I don't like having to log in to FB to get my messages, and in turn to be trackable by all the sites that partner with FB. That's just my reasons - but I don't boycott it. If somebody messages me on FB, I usually reply. I just don't initiate communication on FB.
- icegreentea 16y ago
  I once went to a info session that Facebook put on at our school (this was trying to attract coop students). One of the things that the previous coops, as well as the recruiters/presenters emphasized was the lack of formality and 'set' procedures. One coop recalled how he was directly responsible for a 20 minute downtime in facebook because he pushed something to production after testing it locally a bit. Yeah, no real testing servers (they exist, but aren't actually required), no real dedicated QA, none of the usual trappings. The coop laughed it off. And the recruiter did too, and pointed out that a lot of responsibility is placed directly on whoever is coding the code. They're even the flexibility and freedom to do what they think they should do, and if it causes a little downtime? As long as its short, and nothing is lost, no problem. It's something to laugh at at the bar. Now, I'm sure there's some embellishing going on there to ensnare more young minds, but I even if its half true, I think this anecdote provides a lot of insight into how facebook works. Perhaps many of the little privacy things isn't the result of Zuckerberg deciding that everyone doesn't need control, it's just the individual programmer placing it lower on their priorities to even think about, and there being no real overarching structure to impose these privacy concerns. Until it gets released to production and 'blows up' in their face.
Das_Bruce 16y ago
A good first test to see whether something is possibly a bad idea is to give it to a 13 year old boy and see if he makes dick jokes with it. This feature seems ripe for the picking.
- pvg 16y ago
  By that test, there are probably no good ideas at all. Except maybe the moms of 13 year-old boys.
  - LogicHoleFlaw 16y ago
    Oh, they'll make jokes about those too.
NZ_Matt 16y ago
This isn't as bad as it looks. Only your friends can add you into groups. You also don't have to participate in the group and they have made it very easy to leave. Jason is not a typical user and probably has a lot of crappy friends due to accepting requests from anyone. Adding an accept option would only add an unnecessary layer without changing much.
- stingraycharles 16y ago
  > Adding an accept option would only add an unnecessary layer without changing much. How about making a privacy option that allows you to set whether you automatically opt-in into groups or whether you want to be asked for a confirmation? I don't know about you, but I want to be in control of which groups I join, even if only my friends are able to force-join me.
  - NZ_Matt 16y ago
    That seems like a good solution. Making public groups opt-in is probably a good idea. However opt-in wouldn't change much for private groups because no one else can see the private groups that you have been added to.
    - rhizome 16y ago
      Except, given Facebook's history, I'm assuming we'll have to visit each and every one of those groups separately to unjoin them. That certainly would change my relationship to Facebook as a service if there is increased overhead in cleaning up the effects of unwanted features that are imposed on me.
- uptown 16y ago
  "Only your friends can add you into groups." And how many of your "friends" are ACTUALLY your "friends"? As much as it was once fun to reconnect with somebody I shared an elementary-school classroom with, that's a connection I'll need to revisit if they're given the power to latch my profile onto whatever cause they want ... implying my support of that movement. Facebook seems to have created Groups as their implementation of Twitter Lists. I can create a list and call it whatever I choose ... adding whomever I choose to it. But my sense is that the perception of a Facebook Group is different than a Twitter List because Facebook already has/had the concept of groups, and they DID require opt-in.
DrJokepu 16y ago
I just deleted my Facebook profile a couple of weeks ago. I'm not one of those tinfoil hat privacy nazis who worry a lot about that kind of stuff, I just simply don't enjoy Facebook anymore and there's too much shady stuff going on. If you don't mind this then go ahead and use it to "connect with your friends" but personally I think Facebook became seriously uncool recently and I don't think that's going to change. I'm not boycotting or anything, I'm not mad at them, I just simply don't enjoy it anymore.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  Heretic! Seriously, though, can you elaborate on how Facebook 'became seriously uncool recently'? What issues caused your loss of enjoyment?
  - DrJokepu 16y ago
    It's complicated and should really be written as a long blogpost rant and not as a comment but I will try to summarize it. Basically the problems are twofold: things that are inherent to all social networks and things that are Facebook-specific. One thing I noticed on social networks with a very large userbase (the definition of a social network having a very large userbase is my mum being registered on it) is that the more life you have, the less likely that you're using it, hence the more boring person someone is, the more they post/comment on social networks, hence most of the user-generated "content" on Facebook is incredibly boring. This is very different from "small" networks where most users are "cool", "trendsetter" people. Obviously this is an oversimplification and I have really interesting friends who are on Facebook all the time, but it's still a generic rule none the less and it makes the whole experience more boring. My particular problem with Facebook is that I simply don't get what's going on; who can see what. I mean, which action of mine will be posted on my wall, who will be able to see it, etc. This may not sound very humble but I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person but still with all that brainpower I just can't tell whether my theoretical ex-girlfriend can see the photos of me that my theoretical current girlfriend of mine posted and if she can, how to disable it. I mean, these are everyday trivial problems that average people living a normal life face, this is not just being afraid of the government / snake headed aliens mining your super secret personal data. Do I really want to show my theoretical drunk party photos with my old headmistress from my elementary school? But then how do I share them with my closest friends? The whole thing is just too much hassle so I wouldn't ever bother posting interesting stuff. Which leads to most people (or at least the intelligent ones) only posting boring, "politically correct" things that wouldn't offend even their old headmistress. Which leads to boring content.
powrtoch 16y ago
Surely I'm not the only one to notice that apparently Facebook users number "500 people and growing"?
- fossuser 16y ago
  Not only that, but he also spells the acronym two different ways "NABLA" and "NAMBLA", don't know which one is the actual name. You'd think he'd mildly proofread his writing right?
  - sp332 16y ago
    The screenshot says NAMBLA, so he actually misspelled it as NABLA twice.
    - StavrosK 16y ago
      It's North American Man/Boy Love Association, so NAMBLA. Don't you guys watch South Park?
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - nollidge 16y ago
        South Park did not invent it; it is a real organization. Try not to think about that too much, though.
        StavrosK 16y ago
        I know it is; South Park popularised it.
      - zerohp 16y ago
        Don't you mean the National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes?
notahacker 16y ago
People playing pranks like this was the first thing I thought of when I read the headlines about Facebook "streamlining" group membership. And yes, some of my actual friends would invite me to some very silly in-joke groups that I wouldn't voluntarily join. The potential problems are reduced if these groups are private and _will remain_ private in future versions of Facebook.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
callumjones 16y ago
I'm over Jason's constant Facebook trolling, it's distracting from his cool work with the startup scene.
nickdunkman 16y ago
Unless you are POTUS, don't put your middle name in your email signatures. It's pretentious.
- noahth 16y ago
  The whole sig struck me as over-the-top and obnoxious, personally. "HERE IS A LIST SHOWING HOW IMPORTANT I AM." Hint - if you're really important, all you need to sign is your name.
  - epochwolf 16y ago
    Indeed. ~ epochwolf
joshklein 16y ago
Not to suggest I disagree with JC, but in addition to advocating opt-in, he should have less shitty "friends".
- shareme 16y ago
  or maybe stop baiting Aron Wall?
raquo 16y ago
However, from Facebook help center: > Similar to being tagged in a photo, you can only be added to a group by one of your friends. Maybe you either don't really need 61532 "friends" or Facebook should have a distinction between Friends and contacts. Not saying that's a reasonable feature, but still.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  Everyone is an equal in Facebook, just like in real life.
kmavm 16y ago
The reasoning here is the same as photo tagging, or wall posts. Friends can tag "you" in photos without your explicit acceptance of the tag. You have a much more powerful tool for preventing "prank" photo tags/wall posts/group joins than Facebook could ever invent technologically: social pressure. To wit, these people are nominally your friends; even if you've been somewhat promiscuous, and they're just your coworker, or acquaintance, or distant family member, you still have much more leverage over their behavior than Facebook ever will. So, if Joe Idiot tags you in a photo of a goat, or joins you in an embarassing group: a) untag/unjoin yourself, and b) tell Joe THAT WAS NOT COOL. Optionally, unfriend Joe. I.e., exactly what you would have done if Joe wrote a blog post about your embarrassing medical problem, or put you on a mailing list you do not like.
- joshfinnie 16y ago
  However, being tagged in a photo and joined to a group is COMPLETELY different. I think people know that you can be tagged in a photo without approval, but the underlying idea of groups are opt-in. This should have have happened!
- bps4484 16y ago
  I can choose in the privacy settings who sees what I'm tagged in. Specifically, I can say that tags are only seen by me, which would effectively turn off tagging. Can I do this with groups? I've tried, but can't seem to find it anywhere in the settings. If anyone knows, please share, I'm very interested in turning it off.
tocomment 16y ago
I'm not sure if this is related. I clicked "like" on an article someone posted (or I thought was an article) and now new articles from that company seems to be showing up in my news feed. What's the deal with that?
- mbreese 16y ago
  It's not related, but when you like a page, the owner of that page can now post directly to your wall.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  You've been Zuckerpunched, my friend.
- JeremyBanks 16y ago
  http://www.bingocardcreator.com/articles/facebook-like-button-spam http://www.bingocardcreator.com/articles/facebook-like-butto... Discussed here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1646778 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1646778
indigoviolet 16y ago
Didn't Calacanis leave Facebook?
- scorpion032 16y ago
  Exactly!! He made a big deal of it, saying he was done with it. People seem to have a bad memory!!
  - wyclif 16y ago
    Just because he commented on the feature doesn't mean he's using it.
Mistone 16y ago
I'm sure Zuck and Sandberg went straight for the delete button on that email. "Oh its linkbait Calcanis ranting about something stupid and trolling for an Adviser gig." Its so odd, I do really like JCal's stance on other issues (paid pitching groups) but his fb rants are annoying. He should have wrote them a thank you letter for delivering an easy to use tool for exporting all content rather than just a simple PS mention.
- wyclif 16y ago
  No, in this case Calacanis had a point. Facebook shouldn't be allowing force joins to sketchy groups.
  - Mistone 16y ago
    fb's is following their social design process of solving problems. the solution to someone joining you to a sketchy group is also solved by social design - you un-join, un-friend the person, and post quick status update stating you think the group is crap and call out the person that signed you up. Its not totally ideal but there are clear social repercussions for such bad behavior, which is an advantage of social design.

61 points by feint 16y ago

Why does Facebook have such a history of bad decisions like this? I -just- rejoined Facebook yesterday due to the fact that I seemed to be missing out on too many opportunities by boycotting it, and my 6-month-long boycott has made absolutely no dent in their popularity.

Tichy 16y ago
Can you list some of the opportunities? I have an account, but no idea what to do with it.
- lliiffee 16y ago
  As a facebook non-joiner myself, I find that I miss out on a lot of baby pictures, knowledge of other people's birthdays, and (a few) parties.
  - quattrofan 16y ago
    I would regard that as a benefit.
    - lliiffee 16y ago
      That reminds me of another effect: I am thought of as a person that regards missing these things as a benefit!
- khafra 16y ago
  For me, it's timely knowledge of friends doing things I might want to join in on, keeping up with a few groups and organizations that post things there, and cheaply signalling my affiliation with just about anything by joining a group named after it. I also found a great band called "The 21st Century Monads" because I was looking through famous people's profiles, and it's the only music group on David Chalmers' page.
- scott_s 16y ago
  I have some friends who use FB as their main means of communication. Instead of firing on a quick email to them, I send it on FB.
  - moshezadka 16y ago
    While it's not my primary means of communications, my Facebook account gets near 0 spam (both literal spam and "mailing lists which are fairly boring but every now and again I should check") which means that while I made everything else in my smartphone just give a little "pop" sound, Facebook messages (and SMSs) actually make a "pring-pring" (more noticeable) sound -- if my Facebook mailbox has something in it, there's a high likelihood it's a real person, needing something real from me (and there's a high likelihood that I want to give them that, since I actually know them...) My point: It's actually rational to assume FB messages are more valuable, and given people who do that, it's equally rational to send them messages on FB :)
    - scott_s 16y ago
      Oh, I agree. Some people just see FB was a means to communicate and don't bother worrying about how cool/uncool it is.
- wccrawford 16y ago
  A friend of a friend offered me an opportunity recently for some development. They (who own the business) are big into Facebook and that the the first method of contact that they offered. It's not a huge money-making opportunity, but it's the first step towards a path I've been wanting to take for quite some time. It's not that I'm mining Facebook for jobs any more than I mine my phone for jobs... It's that by boycotting it, I cut off a means of contact that others might prefer. (And I could also appear childish or out-of-touch as well.)
  - Tichy 16y ago
    Nothing against communicating via Facebook, if that is your thing. But it is definitely not childish to not communicate via Facebook. Boycott is too strong, perhaps, but if you simply see no use for it. Personally I am just old fashioned in that way, I still run my own email server. I don't feel too happy about my communications belonging to some mega corporation. Also, I don't like having to log in to FB to get my messages, and in turn to be trackable by all the sites that partner with FB. That's just my reasons - but I don't boycott it. If somebody messages me on FB, I usually reply. I just don't initiate communication on FB.
icegreentea 16y ago
I once went to a info session that Facebook put on at our school (this was trying to attract coop students). One of the things that the previous coops, as well as the recruiters/presenters emphasized was the lack of formality and 'set' procedures. One coop recalled how he was directly responsible for a 20 minute downtime in facebook because he pushed something to production after testing it locally a bit. Yeah, no real testing servers (they exist, but aren't actually required), no real dedicated QA, none of the usual trappings. The coop laughed it off. And the recruiter did too, and pointed out that a lot of responsibility is placed directly on whoever is coding the code. They're even the flexibility and freedom to do what they think they should do, and if it causes a little downtime? As long as its short, and nothing is lost, no problem. It's something to laugh at at the bar. Now, I'm sure there's some embellishing going on there to ensnare more young minds, but I even if its half true, I think this anecdote provides a lot of insight into how facebook works. Perhaps many of the little privacy things isn't the result of Zuckerberg deciding that everyone doesn't need control, it's just the individual programmer placing it lower on their priorities to even think about, and there being no real overarching structure to impose these privacy concerns. Until it gets released to production and 'blows up' in their face.

Das_Bruce 16y ago

A good first test to see whether something is possibly a bad idea is to give it to a 13 year old boy and see if he makes dick jokes with it. This feature seems ripe for the picking.

pvg 16y ago
By that test, there are probably no good ideas at all. Except maybe the moms of 13 year-old boys.
- LogicHoleFlaw 16y ago
  Oh, they'll make jokes about those too.

NZ_Matt 16y ago

This isn't as bad as it looks. Only your friends can add you into groups. You also don't have to participate in the group and they have made it very easy to leave. Jason is not a typical user and probably has a lot of crappy friends due to accepting requests from anyone. Adding an accept option would only add an unnecessary layer without changing much.

stingraycharles 16y ago
> Adding an accept option would only add an unnecessary layer without changing much. How about making a privacy option that allows you to set whether you automatically opt-in into groups or whether you want to be asked for a confirmation? I don't know about you, but I want to be in control of which groups I join, even if only my friends are able to force-join me.
- NZ_Matt 16y ago
  That seems like a good solution. Making public groups opt-in is probably a good idea. However opt-in wouldn't change much for private groups because no one else can see the private groups that you have been added to.
  - rhizome 16y ago
    Except, given Facebook's history, I'm assuming we'll have to visit each and every one of those groups separately to unjoin them. That certainly would change my relationship to Facebook as a service if there is increased overhead in cleaning up the effects of unwanted features that are imposed on me.
uptown 16y ago
"Only your friends can add you into groups." And how many of your "friends" are ACTUALLY your "friends"? As much as it was once fun to reconnect with somebody I shared an elementary-school classroom with, that's a connection I'll need to revisit if they're given the power to latch my profile onto whatever cause they want ... implying my support of that movement. Facebook seems to have created Groups as their implementation of Twitter Lists. I can create a list and call it whatever I choose ... adding whomever I choose to it. But my sense is that the perception of a Facebook Group is different than a Twitter List because Facebook already has/had the concept of groups, and they DID require opt-in.

DrJokepu 16y ago

I just deleted my Facebook profile a couple of weeks ago. I'm not one of those tinfoil hat privacy nazis who worry a lot about that kind of stuff, I just simply don't enjoy Facebook anymore and there's too much shady stuff going on. If you don't mind this then go ahead and use it to "connect with your friends" but personally I think Facebook became seriously uncool recently and I don't think that's going to change. I'm not boycotting or anything, I'm not mad at them, I just simply don't enjoy it anymore.

chopsueyar 16y ago
Heretic! Seriously, though, can you elaborate on how Facebook 'became seriously uncool recently'? What issues caused your loss of enjoyment?
- DrJokepu 16y ago
  It's complicated and should really be written as a long blogpost rant and not as a comment but I will try to summarize it. Basically the problems are twofold: things that are inherent to all social networks and things that are Facebook-specific. One thing I noticed on social networks with a very large userbase (the definition of a social network having a very large userbase is my mum being registered on it) is that the more life you have, the less likely that you're using it, hence the more boring person someone is, the more they post/comment on social networks, hence most of the user-generated "content" on Facebook is incredibly boring. This is very different from "small" networks where most users are "cool", "trendsetter" people. Obviously this is an oversimplification and I have really interesting friends who are on Facebook all the time, but it's still a generic rule none the less and it makes the whole experience more boring. My particular problem with Facebook is that I simply don't get what's going on; who can see what. I mean, which action of mine will be posted on my wall, who will be able to see it, etc. This may not sound very humble but I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person but still with all that brainpower I just can't tell whether my theoretical ex-girlfriend can see the photos of me that my theoretical current girlfriend of mine posted and if she can, how to disable it. I mean, these are everyday trivial problems that average people living a normal life face, this is not just being afraid of the government / snake headed aliens mining your super secret personal data. Do I really want to show my theoretical drunk party photos with my old headmistress from my elementary school? But then how do I share them with my closest friends? The whole thing is just too much hassle so I wouldn't ever bother posting interesting stuff. Which leads to most people (or at least the intelligent ones) only posting boring, "politically correct" things that wouldn't offend even their old headmistress. Which leads to boring content.

powrtoch 16y ago

Surely I'm not the only one to notice that apparently Facebook users number "500 people and growing"?

fossuser 16y ago
Not only that, but he also spells the acronym two different ways "NABLA" and "NAMBLA", don't know which one is the actual name. You'd think he'd mildly proofread his writing right?
- sp332 16y ago
  The screenshot says NAMBLA, so he actually misspelled it as NABLA twice.
  - StavrosK 16y ago
    It's North American Man/Boy Love Association, so NAMBLA. Don't you guys watch South Park?
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - nollidge 16y ago
      South Park did not invent it; it is a real organization. Try not to think about that too much, though.
      - StavrosK 16y ago
        I know it is; South Park popularised it.
    - zerohp 16y ago
      Don't you mean the National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes?

notahacker 16y ago

People playing pranks like this was the first thing I thought of when I read the headlines about Facebook "streamlining" group membership. And yes, some of my actual friends would invite me to some very silly in-joke groups that I wouldn't voluntarily join. The potential problems are reduced if these groups are private and _will remain_ private in future versions of Facebook.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

callumjones 16y ago

I'm over Jason's constant Facebook trolling, it's distracting from his cool work with the startup scene.

nickdunkman 16y ago

Unless you are POTUS, don't put your middle name in your email signatures. It's pretentious.

noahth 16y ago
The whole sig struck me as over-the-top and obnoxious, personally. "HERE IS A LIST SHOWING HOW IMPORTANT I AM." Hint - if you're really important, all you need to sign is your name.
- epochwolf 16y ago
  Indeed. ~ epochwolf

joshklein 16y ago

Not to suggest I disagree with JC, but in addition to advocating opt-in, he should have less shitty "friends".

shareme 16y ago
or maybe stop baiting Aron Wall?

raquo 16y ago

However, from Facebook help center: > Similar to being tagged in a photo, you can only be added to a group by one of your friends. Maybe you either don't really need 61532 "friends" or Facebook should have a distinction between Friends and contacts. Not saying that's a reasonable feature, but still.

chopsueyar 16y ago
Everyone is an equal in Facebook, just like in real life.

kmavm 16y ago

The reasoning here is the same as photo tagging, or wall posts. Friends can tag "you" in photos without your explicit acceptance of the tag. You have a much more powerful tool for preventing "prank" photo tags/wall posts/group joins than Facebook could ever invent technologically: social pressure. To wit, these people are nominally your friends; even if you've been somewhat promiscuous, and they're just your coworker, or acquaintance, or distant family member, you still have much more leverage over their behavior than Facebook ever will. So, if Joe Idiot tags you in a photo of a goat, or joins you in an embarassing group: a) untag/unjoin yourself, and b) tell Joe THAT WAS NOT COOL. Optionally, unfriend Joe. I.e., exactly what you would have done if Joe wrote a blog post about your embarrassing medical problem, or put you on a mailing list you do not like.

joshfinnie 16y ago
However, being tagged in a photo and joined to a group is COMPLETELY different. I think people know that you can be tagged in a photo without approval, but the underlying idea of groups are opt-in. This should have have happened!
bps4484 16y ago
I can choose in the privacy settings who sees what I'm tagged in. Specifically, I can say that tags are only seen by me, which would effectively turn off tagging. Can I do this with groups? I've tried, but can't seem to find it anywhere in the settings. If anyone knows, please share, I'm very interested in turning it off.

tocomment 16y ago

I'm not sure if this is related. I clicked "like" on an article someone posted (or I thought was an article) and now new articles from that company seems to be showing up in my news feed. What's the deal with that?

mbreese 16y ago
It's not related, but when you like a page, the owner of that page can now post directly to your wall.
chopsueyar 16y ago
You've been Zuckerpunched, my friend.
JeremyBanks 16y ago
http://www.bingocardcreator.com/articles/facebook-like-button-spam http://www.bingocardcreator.com/articles/facebook-like-butto... Discussed here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1646778 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1646778

indigoviolet 16y ago

Didn't Calacanis leave Facebook?

scorpion032 16y ago
Exactly!! He made a big deal of it, saying he was done with it. People seem to have a bad memory!!
- wyclif 16y ago
  Just because he commented on the feature doesn't mean he's using it.

Mistone 16y ago

I'm sure Zuck and Sandberg went straight for the delete button on that email. "Oh its linkbait Calcanis ranting about something stupid and trolling for an Adviser gig." Its so odd, I do really like JCal's stance on other issues (paid pitching groups) but his fb rants are annoying. He should have wrote them a thank you letter for delivering an easy to use tool for exporting all content rather than just a simple PS mention.

wyclif 16y ago
No, in this case Calacanis had a point. Facebook shouldn't be allowing force joins to sketchy groups.
- Mistone 16y ago
  fb's is following their social design process of solving problems. the solution to someone joining you to a sketchy group is also solved by social design - you un-join, un-friend the person, and post quick status update stating you think the group is crap and call out the person that signed you up. Its not totally ideal but there are clear social repercussions for such bad behavior, which is an advantage of social design.