> "And yet, people keep building websites that do just that, and indicate that they will not change this." IMO there are two salient points to this: 1 - The p

> "And yet, people keep building websites that do just that, and indicate that they will not change this." IMO there are two salient points to this: 1 - The people who really, really dislike logging in with Facebook (to the point where they will refuse to participate) are a small but vocal minority. Even in the tech industry itself. 2 - The strong dislike for using Facebook login is many-fold. For most people it comes down to abuse of the Facebook link (e.g., spamming things onto your feed, messaging your friends, being in general awful), and that is a trust issue that can be mitigated with the correct positioning and assurances. The people who are against cross-network authentication on principle (as opposed to some negative artifact of its current implementation) are an even smaller camp, and they're the only ones you're really guaranteed to lose out on. > "but when potential users all say "I'm not going to use this product because it makes me jump through hoop X" (and X isn't a fundamental component), my response would be to remove X." 1 - Beware of what your users say, it is not always what they want, or what they would use. People are extraordinarily bad at guessing their own motivations, if you took all feedback literally at face value, you might be screwed. A complaint against X may be actually a complaint against sub-component Y, or the interaction of X with unrelated bit Z. 2 - The benefit here vastly outweighs the objections. The numbers have shown this again, and again, and again, and again, that when given the option to do a one-click signin vs. filling out a form (and giving out your email address, again), people will overwhelmingly choose the former.