3 ms·

1) Tagging a photo of someone generally does not imply their membership/support/interest in something (e.g NAMBLA). 2) It's very clear whether someone is truly

by ajg1977 16y ago

1) Tagging a photo of someone generally does not imply their membership/support/interest in something (e.g NAMBLA). 2) It's very clear whether someone is truly in a photo, or it's a result of mischief. It's impossible to tell this with membership of a group. 3) Being tagged in a photo does not create a subscription. I actually think there SHOULD be a way to prevent being photo tagged if you so wish, or at least prevent it becoming a hard-link to your profile/photos. My sister hates when people tag her in photos and will diligently remove the tags. I think that's a bit weird, but it should be her choice whether she can be tagged or not.

michael_dorfman 16y ago
Your sister currently has that choice. As for groups, I still fail to see the problem. You're notified when somebody (one of your Friends) adds you to a group; if you don't want to be part of the group, you remove yourself (and won't be able to be added again). So, if your Friends aren't being malicious, there's no problem. If your Friends are being malicious, there's a very easy remedy (and you ought to reconsider who your Friends are.) Tempest in a teapot, if you ask me.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  This is yet another one of those things that greatly reduces the SN ratio of Facebook. Remember when apps were able to post to your stream willy-nilly? Facebook's stream became almost useless - for every one status update from one of your friends, there would be 6 more from apps like Farmville (seriously, Zynga's credibility for me went out the window when they started massively spamming everyone's streams). Facebook had to backpedal quickly on that one and institute some pretty hard caps on what contexts allow apps to insert something into the stream, and the volume thereof also. The more "curating" I have to do to make Facebook palatable to use, the less inclined I am to use it. For some people, photo tagging is one of those things (and IMHO ought to be fixed), and now they've introduced yet another thing you have to watch out for (on top of being a hawk on your privacy settings, in case Facebook decides to mess with them without your knowledge, again). To be fair, this isn't the world-ending thing that a lot of outlets are claiming it is. But IMHO it is a clear net negative for the usability and appeal of Facebook. It's also fixing something that ain't broke - your friends can already suggest groups to you (as well as friends, pages, etc). If you really are interested in said group, there's already a perfectly capable mechanism for your friends to tell you.
  - sgibat 16y ago
    The only people saying it's a net negative are people that don't actually use FB that much. For those of us who like it and use it to communicate with friends and family daily, the new groups features are long awaited. Group chat built into FB is so convenient! And fun.
- drivingmenuts 16y ago
  I have to vociferously disagree here. In the real world, in order for a friend to add me to a group, they have to initiate it through some action: call, write, speak directly to, etc. It requires some sort of action on my part. If I don't wish to join an evangelical Christian group, I do not have to. On Facebook, I can be added to a group I object to without my approval or knowledge. Removing myself from the group requires the action. I frequently go 4 or 5 weeks without checking Facebook and it's entirely possible that one of my friends (whom are friends, but not close friends) could have added me to some aforementioned group. Facebook seems to want to model real-world relationships, but they don't allow for the way real-world relationships form and act. They want to cut out the inconvenience of us having to approve everything and just have it done automatically for us, which just doesn't work for me.

by ajg1977 16y ago

michael_dorfman 16y ago

Your sister currently has that choice. As for groups, I still fail to see the problem. You're notified when somebody (one of your Friends) adds you to a group; if you don't want to be part of the group, you remove yourself (and won't be able to be added again). So, if your Friends aren't being malicious, there's no problem. If your Friends are being malicious, there's a very easy remedy (and you ought to reconsider who your Friends are.) Tempest in a teapot, if you ask me.

potatolicious 16y ago
This is yet another one of those things that greatly reduces the SN ratio of Facebook. Remember when apps were able to post to your stream willy-nilly? Facebook's stream became almost useless - for every one status update from one of your friends, there would be 6 more from apps like Farmville (seriously, Zynga's credibility for me went out the window when they started massively spamming everyone's streams). Facebook had to backpedal quickly on that one and institute some pretty hard caps on what contexts allow apps to insert something into the stream, and the volume thereof also. The more "curating" I have to do to make Facebook palatable to use, the less inclined I am to use it. For some people, photo tagging is one of those things (and IMHO ought to be fixed), and now they've introduced yet another thing you have to watch out for (on top of being a hawk on your privacy settings, in case Facebook decides to mess with them without your knowledge, again). To be fair, this isn't the world-ending thing that a lot of outlets are claiming it is. But IMHO it is a clear net negative for the usability and appeal of Facebook. It's also fixing something that ain't broke - your friends can already suggest groups to you (as well as friends, pages, etc). If you really are interested in said group, there's already a perfectly capable mechanism for your friends to tell you.
- sgibat 16y ago
  The only people saying it's a net negative are people that don't actually use FB that much. For those of us who like it and use it to communicate with friends and family daily, the new groups features are long awaited. Group chat built into FB is so convenient! And fun.
drivingmenuts 16y ago
I have to vociferously disagree here. In the real world, in order for a friend to add me to a group, they have to initiate it through some action: call, write, speak directly to, etc. It requires some sort of action on my part. If I don't wish to join an evangelical Christian group, I do not have to. On Facebook, I can be added to a group I object to without my approval or knowledge. Removing myself from the group requires the action. I frequently go 4 or 5 weeks without checking Facebook and it's entirely possible that one of my friends (whom are friends, but not close friends) could have added me to some aforementioned group. Facebook seems to want to model real-world relationships, but they don't allow for the way real-world relationships form and act. They want to cut out the inconvenience of us having to approve everything and just have it done automatically for us, which just doesn't work for me.