3 ms·
Of course Facebook didn't promote this properly. It's not in Facebook's interest to promote this properly. Those of you who care about this sort of thing shoul
by gyardley 14y ago
Of course Facebook didn't promote this properly. It's not in Facebook's interest to promote this properly.
Those of you who care about this sort of thing should be asking yourselves why the Facebook privacy advocates didn't or couldn't promote this properly on their own - after all, the sharing mechanisms built into Facebook work pretty well. That's the far more interesting question here.
- polshaw 14y agoBecause as a user you can only share with your friends, because 270m people is an impossibly large number and it would feel not even worth trying, because people don't like to be spammed repeatedly, because fb has an authority (on fb) that regular users don't have, because only a fraction of users read blogs (etc) that might have promoted this, because apathy, because even if the userbase achieved this impossible feat there would be nothing to stop fb from just ignoring it. Enough? Perhaps it should have been better publicised beforehand, but ultimately it would have been futile anyway.
- gyardley 14y agoOf course Facebook can ignore the result / set impossibly high hurdles. It's Facebook, not a democracy. I'm boggled that they bothered with this thing in the first place. We all agree that 270mm people is impossible, but many other things manage to rack up low numbers of millions of users on Facebook, just from users sharing with their friends. Why couldn't this one put together, say, a million? Unless there's something I'm missing, three hundred thousand implies the public wasn't buying what was being sold.