4 ms·

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 le

by 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.
- Stwerner 16y ago
  Yeah, this seems kind of silly. I think of facebook friends as people I might have met once, not people I would trust to add information to my profile.
  - sofuture 16y ago
    So don't friend them on Facebook? No snark intended, I don't understand why that's always off the table in Facebook discussions. I have 95 friends, they are all family or friends or coworkers. I previously had a lot more friends, but what's the point? I'm not friends with them, I don't care what's happening in their lives nor they in mine. I'm not even leaving room for the 'trust to add information to my profile argument'. Your perception of Facebook is kind of irrelevant, Facebook is giving you a platform that does one thing. You don't get the option to disagree with what it does based on a perception of what you think it does or should do -- aside from not engaging with their product or engaging in a way based on what the platform actually does.
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      Facebook is giving you a platform that does one thing But that one thing keeps changing at the whim of Facebook. The service 'evolves' and expects the users to do the same. As a user adjusts to the facebook eco-system, some arbitrary fundamental change comes out, making the user constantly reevaluating their 'friend' relationships. This can be a real time suck.
- rb2k_ 16y ago
  > And how many of your "friends" are ACTUALLY your "friends"? 100%, but I seem to be in a minority with that decision
  - sofuture 16y ago
    I'd say about 70%. The other 30% are family -- lord knows I'd defriend them in an instant if we didn't have to see each other on the holidays!
jfager 16y ago
I left Facebook after their feature rollout at the beginning of the summer, so I can't check these things for myself. Do you really not receive notification when someone adds you to a group? If not, how is it easy to leave, given that you may not even know you're a member? And is there any way to know who added you, so that if someone keeps doing this to you, you'll know you need to tell them to stop or unfriend them?
- NZ_Matt 16y ago
  Keep in mind that these "groups" are different from the previous version of groups that facebook use to have. You get a notification when added to a group and can easily leave with one click. Groups are private by default which means that nobody outside of the group can see your private groups or any of the content. This has made facebook a lot more interesting for me. Essentially it's a great way to have private discussions between my close group of friends without broadcasting to all my "friends". The facebook blog has a video overview: http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=434700832130 http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=434700832130
  - jfager 16y ago
    You get a notification when added to a group Any thoughts, then, on what Calacanis meant when he said "I was never informed that I was 'force-joined' to the NABLA group."? Was he just mistaken? Groups are private by default Okay, that's fine. But who controls if or when that group is made public? And can you still be "force joined" to non-private groups?
    - jwegan 16y ago
      My guess is Calacanis gets lots of notifications and he probably just missed it. The group creator controls when the group is made public, and given Facebook's track record, you should probably assume anything you write in Facebook (except private messages) may eventually be public. Also I believe you can be "force joined" to non-private groups.
tallanvor 16y ago
Sorry, but I don't want my friends to be able to add me to groups without my permission anymore than I want people I don't even know to be able to do so. Whether somebody really thinks you'd like to be a part or decides to do so as a joke, it's still something I should have full control over.
- sofuture 16y ago
  This is simply a 'mailing list' for friends on Facebook. Why aren't you outraged that people can create email mailing lists with outrageous titles like "NAMBLA Email Monthly" that include your address?
  - jfager 16y ago
    I'm not outraged that people can do that with email because I know how email works at a technical level, and I'm comfortable trading that control for a standard decentralized communication medium that I understand the implications of. I do get annoyed when people actually do it, though, and that's why filters exist. Facebook is different. They solely control the medium, and can actually fix it if people complain. Also, the implications are not as readily apparent as with email - this aspect was certainly not played up in the announcement yesterday - and posts like this help people understand exactly what's going on, so they can figure out how to use the system correctly. And, really, if a feature isn't going to offer a meaningful improvement over email, why does it exist? "It's just like email" just tells me I'm going to keep using email.
  - notahacker 16y ago
    Unlike mailing lists, groups on Facebook have hitherto been used mainly to _signal_ agreement with a particular sentiment or membership of a particular organisation. Mailing lists with outrageous titles won't become directly linked to a prominent profile theoretically controlled by you or part of an "open graph" of your interests should Facebook ever decide to make them publically viewable (which their track record strongly suggests they might)
middlegeek 16y ago
"This isn't as bad as it looks. Only your friends can add you into groups" Yes, it is as bad as it looks. If one person can add you to a group without your approval, that's bad.
- sofuture 16y ago
  I can email you without your approval, what's your point? That's an identical amount of control that you're surrendering. I don't get the frenzy-Facebook-rage...
  - middlegeek 16y ago
    "identical amount of control that you're surrendering." Not at all. If you send me an email without me asking, there is no public effect. One example of how this is bad with groups is what if I happen to be on a job search and someone adds me to the "I steal office supplies from my employer and sell them on eBay" group. Let's say a prospective employer is a friend of a FB friend of mine and looks at my profile and sees this. Job offer gone.
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      Obviously, you have never worked as part of an office supply thieves guild. Much of the guild's recruiting is done via Facebook.
    - sofuture 16y ago
      Counterpoint: you can remove yourself from a Facebook group, you can't remove yourself from a webpage or mailing list that someone else has control of. How's this so terrible again?
  - mbreese 16y ago
    Email is private. Being displayed as a member of a Facebook group is quasi-public (depending on your privacy settings, I believe). Big difference.
stevecooperorg 16y ago
Facebook takes common words and redefines them -- so that on Facebook, the 'like' button mean 'subscribe to updates', not 'I think this is good'. Facebook makes more sense when you realise the work is misappropriated. I wonder if we should just mentally translate the work 'Friend' on Facebook as 'person I allow to post about me on the internet'. Only friend that those people you trust to speak for you, and to you. You aren't declaring a public friendship, but delegating your privacy to them.

by NZ_Matt 16y ago

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.

Stwerner 16y ago
Yeah, this seems kind of silly. I think of facebook friends as people I might have met once, not people I would trust to add information to my profile.
- sofuture 16y ago
  So don't friend them on Facebook? No snark intended, I don't understand why that's always off the table in Facebook discussions. I have 95 friends, they are all family or friends or coworkers. I previously had a lot more friends, but what's the point? I'm not friends with them, I don't care what's happening in their lives nor they in mine. I'm not even leaving room for the 'trust to add information to my profile argument'. Your perception of Facebook is kind of irrelevant, Facebook is giving you a platform that does one thing. You don't get the option to disagree with what it does based on a perception of what you think it does or should do -- aside from not engaging with their product or engaging in a way based on what the platform actually does.
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    Facebook is giving you a platform that does one thing But that one thing keeps changing at the whim of Facebook. The service 'evolves' and expects the users to do the same. As a user adjusts to the facebook eco-system, some arbitrary fundamental change comes out, making the user constantly reevaluating their 'friend' relationships. This can be a real time suck.
rb2k_ 16y ago
> And how many of your "friends" are ACTUALLY your "friends"? 100%, but I seem to be in a minority with that decision
- sofuture 16y ago
  I'd say about 70%. The other 30% are family -- lord knows I'd defriend them in an instant if we didn't have to see each other on the holidays!

jfager 16y ago

I left Facebook after their feature rollout at the beginning of the summer, so I can't check these things for myself. Do you really not receive notification when someone adds you to a group? If not, how is it easy to leave, given that you may not even know you're a member? And is there any way to know who added you, so that if someone keeps doing this to you, you'll know you need to tell them to stop or unfriend them?

NZ_Matt 16y ago
Keep in mind that these "groups" are different from the previous version of groups that facebook use to have. You get a notification when added to a group and can easily leave with one click. Groups are private by default which means that nobody outside of the group can see your private groups or any of the content. This has made facebook a lot more interesting for me. Essentially it's a great way to have private discussions between my close group of friends without broadcasting to all my "friends". The facebook blog has a video overview: http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=434700832130 http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=434700832130
- jfager 16y ago
  You get a notification when added to a group Any thoughts, then, on what Calacanis meant when he said "I was never informed that I was 'force-joined' to the NABLA group."? Was he just mistaken? Groups are private by default Okay, that's fine. But who controls if or when that group is made public? And can you still be "force joined" to non-private groups?
  - jwegan 16y ago
    My guess is Calacanis gets lots of notifications and he probably just missed it. The group creator controls when the group is made public, and given Facebook's track record, you should probably assume anything you write in Facebook (except private messages) may eventually be public. Also I believe you can be "force joined" to non-private groups.

tallanvor 16y ago

Sorry, but I don't want my friends to be able to add me to groups without my permission anymore than I want people I don't even know to be able to do so. Whether somebody really thinks you'd like to be a part or decides to do so as a joke, it's still something I should have full control over.

sofuture 16y ago
This is simply a 'mailing list' for friends on Facebook. Why aren't you outraged that people can create email mailing lists with outrageous titles like "NAMBLA Email Monthly" that include your address?
- jfager 16y ago
  I'm not outraged that people can do that with email because I know how email works at a technical level, and I'm comfortable trading that control for a standard decentralized communication medium that I understand the implications of. I do get annoyed when people actually do it, though, and that's why filters exist. Facebook is different. They solely control the medium, and can actually fix it if people complain. Also, the implications are not as readily apparent as with email - this aspect was certainly not played up in the announcement yesterday - and posts like this help people understand exactly what's going on, so they can figure out how to use the system correctly. And, really, if a feature isn't going to offer a meaningful improvement over email, why does it exist? "It's just like email" just tells me I'm going to keep using email.
- notahacker 16y ago
  Unlike mailing lists, groups on Facebook have hitherto been used mainly to _signal_ agreement with a particular sentiment or membership of a particular organisation. Mailing lists with outrageous titles won't become directly linked to a prominent profile theoretically controlled by you or part of an "open graph" of your interests should Facebook ever decide to make them publically viewable (which their track record strongly suggests they might)

middlegeek 16y ago

"This isn't as bad as it looks. Only your friends can add you into groups" Yes, it is as bad as it looks. If one person can add you to a group without your approval, that's bad.

sofuture 16y ago
I can email you without your approval, what's your point? That's an identical amount of control that you're surrendering. I don't get the frenzy-Facebook-rage...
- middlegeek 16y ago
  "identical amount of control that you're surrendering." Not at all. If you send me an email without me asking, there is no public effect. One example of how this is bad with groups is what if I happen to be on a job search and someone adds me to the "I steal office supplies from my employer and sell them on eBay" group. Let's say a prospective employer is a friend of a FB friend of mine and looks at my profile and sees this. Job offer gone.
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    Obviously, you have never worked as part of an office supply thieves guild. Much of the guild's recruiting is done via Facebook.
  - sofuture 16y ago
    Counterpoint: you can remove yourself from a Facebook group, you can't remove yourself from a webpage or mailing list that someone else has control of. How's this so terrible again?
- mbreese 16y ago
  Email is private. Being displayed as a member of a Facebook group is quasi-public (depending on your privacy settings, I believe). Big difference.

stevecooperorg 16y ago

Facebook takes common words and redefines them -- so that on Facebook, the 'like' button mean 'subscribe to updates', not 'I think this is good'. Facebook makes more sense when you realise the work is misappropriated. I wonder if we should just mentally translate the work 'Friend' on Facebook as 'person I allow to post about me on the internet'. Only friend that those people you trust to speak for you, and to you. You aren't declaring a public friendship, but delegating your privacy to them.