6 ms·

The wonderful spin they put on this is: "For the receiver, this test allows them to hear from people who have an important message to send them." But you are d

by zaidf 14y ago

The wonderful spin they put on this is: "For the receiver, this test allows them to hear from people who have an important message to send them." But you are dismissing a perfectly legitimate use. I had no idea there even existed an "Other" folder and when I did find out, there were a half dozen legitimate mails from longlost friends of various types. I can see the privacy concern here but to call the above "spin" is being ignorant to a very legitimate use case. The $1/msg seems like an interesting compromise - if someone legitimate really wanted to reach me, they probably wouldn't mind spending a dollar.

DannyBee 14y ago
I'm not dismissing it, i'm saying it's not legitimate as they had set up filtering (and probably why they changed the filtering settings along with this, as the blog post shows). If i have a setting that says "i only want to hear from friends", then i only want to hear from friends. That's the choice I am making about who i want to hear from. You can argue i'm not thinking this choice through, or am ignorant of the consequences, but that's not the same argument. If they want a setting for "I also want to hear from people who are willing to spend money to reach me" (or some better pr worded version of this), great, i'm not opposed to that.
- toki5 14y ago
  This does seem dismissive to me. The entire point of this exercise is to address zaidf's use case, which is trying to attach importance to messages that are outside the realm of Facebook's "important" data points. If they aren't your friend, and they aren't a friend of your friends', but they still have an important message -- how can we identify this? The obvious hope here is that they can identify important messages by attaching a small (but real) cost to them, while limiting abuse by way of rates and maybe tweaking the cost. You may not want these messages, but the fact remains that there are important messages that go missed because they can't smartly be deemed "important" in the Facebook ecosystem. Maybe there are sinister intentions beneath the surface, but this is still a legitimate attempt to solve a legitimate problem.
  - zaidf 14y ago
    Not to mention that Facebook at present is automatically assuming that I want to be left alone. Spam has never been a problem for me and there isn't enough spam in my Other folder to justify it for me. On the other hand, it took me months to find extremely legitimate messages. I am sure that even when they roll out this feature, they will give you an option to turn it off just as users right now can remove the Message Me button from non-friends entirely.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    It's only dismissive if you assume the weird thought that facebook is the only way to reach me. The entire point of the exercise is to make money, let's be clear about that, it's not about making sure people can reach me with "important" messages. You seem to assume that facebook can or should be the way to reach people who have explicitly said "friends only" for their facebook messages. Again, if i've said "i only want to see messages from friends", and something "important" goes missed as a result, that is the tradeoff I chose. The rest of this argument seems to be "you chose the wrong tradeoff or we think you don't really understand what you are doing so we are doing our best to surface stuff that you explicitly said you didn't care about"

by zaidf 14y ago

DannyBee 14y ago

I'm not dismissing it, i'm saying it's not legitimate as they had set up filtering (and probably why they changed the filtering settings along with this, as the blog post shows). If i have a setting that says "i only want to hear from friends", then i only want to hear from friends. That's the choice I am making about who i want to hear from. You can argue i'm not thinking this choice through, or am ignorant of the consequences, but that's not the same argument. If they want a setting for "I also want to hear from people who are willing to spend money to reach me" (or some better pr worded version of this), great, i'm not opposed to that.

toki5 14y ago
This does seem dismissive to me. The entire point of this exercise is to address zaidf's use case, which is trying to attach importance to messages that are outside the realm of Facebook's "important" data points. If they aren't your friend, and they aren't a friend of your friends', but they still have an important message -- how can we identify this? The obvious hope here is that they can identify important messages by attaching a small (but real) cost to them, while limiting abuse by way of rates and maybe tweaking the cost. You may not want these messages, but the fact remains that there are important messages that go missed because they can't smartly be deemed "important" in the Facebook ecosystem. Maybe there are sinister intentions beneath the surface, but this is still a legitimate attempt to solve a legitimate problem.
- zaidf 14y ago
  Not to mention that Facebook at present is automatically assuming that I want to be left alone. Spam has never been a problem for me and there isn't enough spam in my Other folder to justify it for me. On the other hand, it took me months to find extremely legitimate messages. I am sure that even when they roll out this feature, they will give you an option to turn it off just as users right now can remove the Message Me button from non-friends entirely.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  It's only dismissive if you assume the weird thought that facebook is the only way to reach me. The entire point of the exercise is to make money, let's be clear about that, it's not about making sure people can reach me with "important" messages. You seem to assume that facebook can or should be the way to reach people who have explicitly said "friends only" for their facebook messages. Again, if i've said "i only want to see messages from friends", and something "important" goes missed as a result, that is the tradeoff I chose. The rest of this argument seems to be "you chose the wrong tradeoff or we think you don't really understand what you are doing so we are doing our best to surface stuff that you explicitly said you didn't care about"