4 ms·
Based on the article, the intended behavior was to disallow third parties to post as the user, going forward. But what actually happened was that historic third
by munchbunny 8y ago
Based on the article, the intended behavior was to disallow third parties to post as the user, going forward. But what actually happened was that historic third party app posts also got hidden/deleted?
I feel like that's a pretty obvious problem you would anticipate and write tests for, isn't it? How did something like this manage to get to public rollout?
- not_kurt_godel 8y agoFacebook, unlike many services, has the luxury of not having to worry about backwards-incompatible changes and data migration when it comes to their user-facing experience since that's not where their money comes from. I doubt this problem was intentional, and is probably being fixed, but seems characteristic of an engineering culture that can afford to be apathetic towards such concerns, if not downright contemptuous (i.e. A/B testing user psychological/emotional state thru content manipulation).
- toyg 8y agoThe two issues are disjointed - Facebook didn't foresee a situation where, after a feature was blocked, the disgruntled app developers would completely pull their integrations - or at least no developer the size of Twitter. Had they not reacted like that, the new blocks alone wouldn't have deleted anything.