3 ms·

But people can't be expected to ask before hitting "share" on a public post, can they?

nvr219 14y ago
According to the article the post wasn't public -- it was viewable only to friends of those tagged in the post (as far I as I understood).
- Dylan16807 14y ago
  Now if only facebook would tell people it wasn't public. It's a post by someone you don't know showing up, how subtle is the marking that it's not actually public, if any? People can't be expected to ask before hitting "share" on a post shown as public, can they?
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    There is an icon attached to every post that indicates its privacy setting. That icon is in fact in the same row of actions as the "share" link.
    - chc 14y ago
      Common geek UI philosophy: "There's a cryptic symbol! What could be clearer?" (Not to imply the parent thinks this way. Just that this seems to be yet another example of important information obscured by too-clever UI.)
    - rhizome 14y ago
      an icon on a gray background, colored a very-slightly darker grey.
- businessleads 14y ago
  Right. She should have seen an icon that showed "friends" rather than public. I think the "share" button remains and (if I'm not mistaken) only people within the original permission will be shown your "share" in their feed. This could, however, give the impression that you could just pop the photo into Twitter, however. There is "download" right in that "options" menu. There's also the ol' right-click/save.
  - nvr219 14y ago
    Yeah she was not friends with Randi but apparently friends with one of Randi's friends. Agreed -- it is very confusing. G+ gives you a nice big warning before resharing something within G+. But of course we know that this was shared in a completely different social network (twitter), Callie obviously saved the pic and then reuploaded to twitpic (automatically or manually). Which imho isn't very classy no matter the original privacy settings.
- chc 14y ago
  It was showing up for Callie, who was not friends with Randi. I think most people would assume that means it's public, when it fact it's just an example of the fact that privacy on Facebook is really confusing.
- sp332 14y ago
  I have seen posts where the "share" button was not available. Is there a separate setting for that?
  - businessleads 14y ago
    From eyeballing my feed just now it looks as though any post that's a link can be shared. Then, the link is shared "via X." But only a public status itself gets the share button.
  - nvr219 14y ago
    If it's an image it can be shared AFAIK. Check this screen shot from my feed: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j779fmt85cb9mq6/Screen%20Shot%202012-12-26%20at%203.30.22%20PM.png https://www.dropbox.com/s/j779fmt85cb9mq6/Screen%20Shot%2020... When clicking on "Share" I can share it to all my friends on my time line (or if my default were public, it would share to everyone).

According to the article the post wasn't public -- it was viewable only to friends of those tagged in the post (as far I as I understood).

Dylan16807 14y ago
Now if only facebook would tell people it wasn't public. It's a post by someone you don't know showing up, how subtle is the marking that it's not actually public, if any? People can't be expected to ask before hitting "share" on a post shown as public, can they?
- tedunangst 14y ago
  There is an icon attached to every post that indicates its privacy setting. That icon is in fact in the same row of actions as the "share" link.
  - chc 14y ago
    Common geek UI philosophy: "There's a cryptic symbol! What could be clearer?" (Not to imply the parent thinks this way. Just that this seems to be yet another example of important information obscured by too-clever UI.)
  - rhizome 14y ago
    an icon on a gray background, colored a very-slightly darker grey.
businessleads 14y ago
Right. She should have seen an icon that showed "friends" rather than public. I think the "share" button remains and (if I'm not mistaken) only people within the original permission will be shown your "share" in their feed. This could, however, give the impression that you could just pop the photo into Twitter, however. There is "download" right in that "options" menu. There's also the ol' right-click/save.
- nvr219 14y ago
  Yeah she was not friends with Randi but apparently friends with one of Randi's friends. Agreed -- it is very confusing. G+ gives you a nice big warning before resharing something within G+. But of course we know that this was shared in a completely different social network (twitter), Callie obviously saved the pic and then reuploaded to twitpic (automatically or manually). Which imho isn't very classy no matter the original privacy settings.
chc 14y ago
It was showing up for Callie, who was not friends with Randi. I think most people would assume that means it's public, when it fact it's just an example of the fact that privacy on Facebook is really confusing.
sp332 14y ago
I have seen posts where the "share" button was not available. Is there a separate setting for that?
- businessleads 14y ago
  From eyeballing my feed just now it looks as though any post that's a link can be shared. Then, the link is shared "via X." But only a public status itself gets the share button.
- nvr219 14y ago
  If it's an image it can be shared AFAIK. Check this screen shot from my feed: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j779fmt85cb9mq6/Screen%20Shot%202012-12-26%20at%203.30.22%20PM.png https://www.dropbox.com/s/j779fmt85cb9mq6/Screen%20Shot%2020... When clicking on "Share" I can share it to all my friends on my time line (or if my default were public, it would share to everyone).