3 ms·

Remember when "friends of friends" used to be a (readily accessible) setting? Now, it's "friends" or "public". Reflect on that, for a minute. "Friends of fri

Remember when "friends of friends" used to be a (readily accessible) setting? Now, it's "friends" or "public". Reflect on that, for a minute. "Friends of friends" isn't/wasn't perfect, but it had a moderating effect. A lot of this, is Facebook's own fault. Because greed.

dlhavema 8y ago
I'm guessing it was a lot harder for stuff to go viral when it was only "friends of friends" vs "public"... but i remember reading somewhere they throttle delivery of messages to friends until they can gauge feeedback.. not sure if that was confirmed or a rumor.
javagram 8y ago
Didn’t privacy researchers show that “friends of friends” was misleading and effectively public because of how easy it is to become a friend of a friend ?
- pasbesoin 8y ago
  I can imagine this, especially with friends who "friend all over the place". My own network of friends, and most of their friends, have remained much more contained. People who want to be in touch with real friends, not "products" or random encounters or "networking". However, did Facebook use this as an argument for their change? I've not seen them doing so. And I'm reminded of the whole "profile pictures are now forcibly changed to be public" policy, earlier. It may help people who don't know each other much and have no other avenue of communication, to "friend" each other. (Is that the right John/Jane Smith?) But, again in my anecdotal case, real friends can communicate out-of-band which is the right profile. They're already in touch; Facebook, just allows for asynchronous group sharing and discussion (or did, once upon a "simpler" time). The response to the "profile pictures must be public"? Those with privacy concerns no longer have a profile picture that shows them, if they ever did. Real names, too. That one helps to align collected data with data sales and advertising. And, for connecting less strong social connections. I understand the desire to "connect the world", especially in its more altruistic aspect. But, once again, Facebook quasi forced it. Whereas, social connections and sharing tend to work better when they are "opt in". Not opt out, or even no ability to opt out.
- Avshalom 8y ago
  It's the passive/active question again. It might be trivial to actively become a fof but unlike public, it's not available unless you do take action. And every action is one extra filter.

dlhavema 8y ago

I'm guessing it was a lot harder for stuff to go viral when it was only "friends of friends" vs "public"... but i remember reading somewhere they throttle delivery of messages to friends until they can gauge feeedback.. not sure if that was confirmed or a rumor.

javagram 8y ago

Didn’t privacy researchers show that “friends of friends” was misleading and effectively public because of how easy it is to become a friend of a friend ?

pasbesoin 8y ago
I can imagine this, especially with friends who "friend all over the place". My own network of friends, and most of their friends, have remained much more contained. People who want to be in touch with real friends, not "products" or random encounters or "networking". However, did Facebook use this as an argument for their change? I've not seen them doing so. And I'm reminded of the whole "profile pictures are now forcibly changed to be public" policy, earlier. It may help people who don't know each other much and have no other avenue of communication, to "friend" each other. (Is that the right John/Jane Smith?) But, again in my anecdotal case, real friends can communicate out-of-band which is the right profile. They're already in touch; Facebook, just allows for asynchronous group sharing and discussion (or did, once upon a "simpler" time). The response to the "profile pictures must be public"? Those with privacy concerns no longer have a profile picture that shows them, if they ever did. Real names, too. That one helps to align collected data with data sales and advertising. And, for connecting less strong social connections. I understand the desire to "connect the world", especially in its more altruistic aspect. But, once again, Facebook quasi forced it. Whereas, social connections and sharing tend to work better when they are "opt in". Not opt out, or even no ability to opt out.
Avshalom 8y ago
It's the passive/active question again. It might be trivial to actively become a fof but unlike public, it's not available unless you do take action. And every action is one extra filter.