4 ms·

There’s no evidence in the article that she was confused about anything. She figured out that the tweeter could see the photo because of a connection with her s

by guan 14y ago

There’s no evidence in the article that she was confused about anything. She figured out that the tweeter could see the photo because of a connection with her sister.

rhizome 14y ago
Her stated intent contradicts your interpretation. She posted not thinking it could propagate and she only figured it out after the fact.
- spiantino 14y ago
  She posted it as "friends only" and tagged her family members. The person who tweeted it saw it and assumed that it was showing up because she is a subscriber of Randi's public posts, though in reality it wasn't public and she saw it through a friend connection with one of Randi's sisters. She tweeted the image based on that assumption. Randi saw it, was surprised, and then discovered how it happened (because Randi knows how privacy controls work quite well). They communicated on Twitter and realized the misunderstanding. The end.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    I know the timeline. She posted under "friends only" thinking that it meant "friends only" rather than "friends, and friends of everybody tagged." Is this unclear?
    - spiantino 14y ago
      I'm not sure how you know what she thought or how she interprets the privacy rules. If someone posts something as friends only and someone jacks the link to the image and posts it on twitter, publicly, it doesn't mean the poster doesn't know the privacy rules of Facebook. It means someone who could see the photo took it and made it public. In this case it's the poster who didn't realize it wasn't already public (again, understandably, though in error).
      - rhizome 14y ago
        It means someone who could see the photo took it and made it public. Ah, now I see why you continue your line of insistence here: the problem is that the person who publicized the photo wasn't supposed to be able to see it. The poster didn't know it would be seen by more people than just her friends.
        tedunangst 14y ago
        Disagree. The problem is someone who wasn't supposed to share the photo shared it. Allowing friends of friends to see tagged photos is one of the points of tagging. My friends don't want to see my pictures of you, they want to see your pictures of me. In either case, reposting it to twitter should be taboo (and copyright infringement!).
        rhizome 14y ago
        Allowing friends of friends to see tagged photos is one of the points of tagging Says who?
        tedunangst 14y ago
        My friends don't want to see my pictures of you, they want to see your pictures of me.
        rhizome 14y ago
        You already said that.
        tedunangst 14y ago
        I thought you missed it. That's what I use tagging for. Am I doing it wrong?
  - muzz 14y ago
    Randi didn't seem to know that "friends only" meant that Callie-- and presumably other friends of those who were tagged-- could see it. Her 12:36am tweet indicates as such: http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2012/12/26/0/enhanced-buzz-12528-1356501313-0.jpg http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2012/12/26/...
    - spiantino 14y ago
      No, she (understandably) didn't know Callie was friends with her sister.
      - rhizome 14y ago
        Now she knows that she has to check, despite the text of the feature, thanks to the FB security model. I think we can all expect an FB permissions update in 1Q13 that touches on this experience of hers.

by guan 14y ago

There’s no evidence in the article that she was confused about anything. She figured out that the tweeter could see the photo because of a connection with her sister.

rhizome 14y ago

Her stated intent contradicts your interpretation. She posted not thinking it could propagate and she only figured it out after the fact.

spiantino 14y ago
She posted it as "friends only" and tagged her family members. The person who tweeted it saw it and assumed that it was showing up because she is a subscriber of Randi's public posts, though in reality it wasn't public and she saw it through a friend connection with one of Randi's sisters. She tweeted the image based on that assumption. Randi saw it, was surprised, and then discovered how it happened (because Randi knows how privacy controls work quite well). They communicated on Twitter and realized the misunderstanding. The end.
- rhizome 14y ago
  I know the timeline. She posted under "friends only" thinking that it meant "friends only" rather than "friends, and friends of everybody tagged." Is this unclear?
  - spiantino 14y ago
    I'm not sure how you know what she thought or how she interprets the privacy rules. If someone posts something as friends only and someone jacks the link to the image and posts it on twitter, publicly, it doesn't mean the poster doesn't know the privacy rules of Facebook. It means someone who could see the photo took it and made it public. In this case it's the poster who didn't realize it wasn't already public (again, understandably, though in error).
    - rhizome 14y ago
      It means someone who could see the photo took it and made it public. Ah, now I see why you continue your line of insistence here: the problem is that the person who publicized the photo wasn't supposed to be able to see it. The poster didn't know it would be seen by more people than just her friends.
      - tedunangst 14y ago
        Disagree. The problem is someone who wasn't supposed to share the photo shared it. Allowing friends of friends to see tagged photos is one of the points of tagging. My friends don't want to see my pictures of you, they want to see your pictures of me. In either case, reposting it to twitter should be taboo (and copyright infringement!).
        rhizome 14y ago
        Allowing friends of friends to see tagged photos is one of the points of tagging Says who?
        tedunangst 14y ago
        My friends don't want to see my pictures of you, they want to see your pictures of me.
        rhizome 14y ago
        You already said that.
        tedunangst 14y ago
        I thought you missed it. That's what I use tagging for. Am I doing it wrong?
- muzz 14y ago
  Randi didn't seem to know that "friends only" meant that Callie-- and presumably other friends of those who were tagged-- could see it. Her 12:36am tweet indicates as such: http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2012/12/26/0/enhanced-buzz-12528-1356501313-0.jpg http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2012/12/26/...
  - spiantino 14y ago
    No, she (understandably) didn't know Callie was friends with her sister.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      Now she knows that she has to check, despite the text of the feature, thanks to the FB security model. I think we can all expect an FB permissions update in 1Q13 that touches on this experience of hers.