4 ms·

The topic makes FB sound deceitful, but they don't hide this information, it says it right here: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/plugins/like/ ht

by ry0ohki 16y ago

The topic makes FB sound deceitful, but they don't hide this information, it says it right here: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/plugins/like/ https://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/plugins/like/ The number shown is the sum of: -The number of likes of this URL -The number of shares of this URL (this includes copy/pasting a link back to Facebook) -The number of likes and comments on stories on Facebook about this URL -The number of inbox messages containing this URL as an attachment.

ksablan 16y ago
You're right. I intentionally steered away from calling the number a "lie" because FB clearly states what the number includes.
monochromatic 16y ago
> The number of inbox messages containing this URL as an attachment. I LOVE that they do this.
- brendano 16y ago
  It's fascinating! It would be great to have this information from just normal email -- the data's been there for many years -- but does it seem like privacy invasion then? There doesn't seem to be any difference...
  - sp332 16y ago
    My mail feels private, Facebook doesn't. A lot of people complained loudly when Google started scanning the text of emails to display "relevant" ads. My guess is, there will not be very many people complaining about this.
    - monochromatic 16y ago
      I suspect it only feels this way to you and me because we know better than to treat anything on Facebook as private, whereas email still feels like it at least should be. But for my older relatives, and also for a lot of my friends on Facebook, I suspect there is no difference in their minds.
    - BasDirks 16y ago
      The mob only makes noise when shit hits the fan, the majority is either willfully ignorant or overly paranoid. Even among techs.
- theklub 16y ago
  What if I'm mailing a friend because I don't like the item?
klochner 16y ago
More Orwellian than deceitful, because they're using "liked" to represent the aggregate when "likes" is already its own metric, which happens to be lower than the aggregate. It's kind of funny really - 'did you mean "liked" or "likes"?'
joelhaasnoot 16y ago
I wonder what happens when I like and then comment on an item. Is that counted twice?
wicknicks 16y ago
I would imagine that they find it easier to compute the aggregate and display it rather than maintain different values and display it to people (probably helps them at the scale at which they operate? -- lesser things they show, lesser damage it does?).

by ry0ohki 16y ago

ksablan 16y ago

You're right. I intentionally steered away from calling the number a "lie" because FB clearly states what the number includes.

monochromatic 16y ago

> The number of inbox messages containing this URL as an attachment. I LOVE that they do this.

brendano 16y ago
It's fascinating! It would be great to have this information from just normal email -- the data's been there for many years -- but does it seem like privacy invasion then? There doesn't seem to be any difference...
- sp332 16y ago
  My mail feels private, Facebook doesn't. A lot of people complained loudly when Google started scanning the text of emails to display "relevant" ads. My guess is, there will not be very many people complaining about this.
  - monochromatic 16y ago
    I suspect it only feels this way to you and me because we know better than to treat anything on Facebook as private, whereas email still feels like it at least should be. But for my older relatives, and also for a lot of my friends on Facebook, I suspect there is no difference in their minds.
  - BasDirks 16y ago
    The mob only makes noise when shit hits the fan, the majority is either willfully ignorant or overly paranoid. Even among techs.
theklub 16y ago
What if I'm mailing a friend because I don't like the item?

klochner 16y ago

More Orwellian than deceitful, because they're using "liked" to represent the aggregate when "likes" is already its own metric, which happens to be lower than the aggregate. It's kind of funny really - 'did you mean "liked" or "likes"?'

joelhaasnoot 16y ago

I wonder what happens when I like and then comment on an item. Is that counted twice?

wicknicks 16y ago

I would imagine that they find it easier to compute the aggregate and display it rather than maintain different values and display it to people (probably helps them at the scale at which they operate? -- lesser things they show, lesser damage it does?).