3 ms·
I'm sure Zuckerberg gets this -- it is a pretty blatantly obvious concept. But addressing this technically is hard to do, and likely to be unsuccessful. Think
by Duff 16y ago
I'm sure Zuckerberg gets this -- it is a pretty blatantly obvious concept. But addressing this technically is hard to do, and likely to be unsuccessful.
Think about your own rules that you posted about. How is Facebook going to successfully deal with them? What happens when you decide that some friends get to see the "inner child" and some don't? There are probably ways to accomodate these things, but they are complicated, and 80% of the hundreds of millions of users will screw it up and blame Facebook.
So Facebook deals with it by pushing it down to you and making your problems your problem. Don't want your boss to see the pictures of you doing body shots on Spring Break? Don't want your parents to know your sexual orientation? Fine -- don't post it on Facebook, or don't invite people to read it.
It's not that Facebook doesn't get it -- they just choose not to get involved.
- michaelchisari 16y agoWhat happens when you decide that some friends get to see the "inner child" and some don't? In Appleseed, you create an "inner child" friends circle, and post it only to them. Nobody else would know that friends circle even exists. It's a challenge, from a UI/UX perspective, but if I could fix it in a way that is generally intuitive, with barely any funds, working in my spare time, then surely Facebook, with all it's engineers and funding can do the same.
- Duff 16y agoI'm sure the engineers could hack something up, no problem. The problem is that Facebook's market defines mass-market -- the unwashed masses need to be able to figure out how to do stuff. That's hard.
- pnathan 16y agoSure, it's not 'simple', but Livejournal had that feature before I even heard of Facebook. Dreamwidth took that concept and made it even more sophisticated. Which is part of why I use Dreamwidth. Under a pseudonym, of course. :-)