4 ms·
> Optional like the sites that have "sign in via facebook" and no other option? Yes. Or are you under the impression that those sites are also not optional?
by abraininavat 13y ago
> Optional like the sites that have "sign in via facebook" and no other option?
Yes. Or are you under the impression that those sites are also not optional?
- brymaster 13y agoIf one wants to log into a website that isn't facebook, one shouldn't be forced to have a login from a "social network" they don't use.
- chaz 13y agoShouldn't you be blaming the site for only giving you only one option? Why didn't they provide a second?
- sbarre 13y agoThat's not really Facebook's fault though.
- avmich 13y agoAre you sure that it isn't something somehow related to Facebook which makes those site to use Facebook login, and not, say, its own?
- tedunangst 13y agoWhat is this something that forces sites to use FaceBook login and not implement their own?
- Killswitch 13y agoPeople who complain about yet another login they have to use when "you can just use Facebook or Twitter to login"
- lowkeykiwi 13y agotwitter accounts are the best near-universal logins. fast to setup, complete anonymity and easy 2 click comment signin.
- Killswitch 13y agoI agree, but it still comes back to the same problem. Relying on another site membership. What if SiteA uses Twitter to login because they don't want to make people have yet another login account, but I don't have a Twitter account... Great, so now I have to sign up at Twitter to sign up at SiteA... Making me have to have an account at a site I don't want to have an account at, just to have an account at a site I DO want to have an account at, just because Twitter is more popular.
- tedunangst 13y agoThat's an argument for implementing both Facebook and native logins. It's not an argument for refusing to implement native logins at all.
- KyeRussell 13y agoIf someone wants to use a website, they should use the website. If they don't want to use the website (this includes the login mechanism) then they don't. If your belief that Facebook logins are a bad thing is widespread, people will stop only implementing Facebook logins because it's a bad business decision. Stop whining because the market doesn't agree with you.
- brymaster 13y ago> If someone wants to use a website, they should use the website. …except when that website first make you use facebook. > If your belief that Facebook logins are a bad thing is widespread, people will stop only implementing Facebook logins because it's a bad business decision. These things are a slow process. > Stop whining because the market doesn't agree with you. Luckily, my "whining" (the part about the social logins that you could only argue against, my privacy points were bulletproof and spot-on) is backed up by evidence: http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Privacy-Concerns-Keep-Users-Away-Social-Sign-In/1009613 http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Privacy-Concerns-Keep-Users... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5408735 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5408735 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4603204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4603204
- timmm 13y agoThat's as arbitrary as saying you must have pink hair to use my website. It's a dumb decision on the companies behalf, and for that reason not a legitimate concern with reputable companies.
- calinet6 13y agoThis is simply a discussion of quality. Optional things may still be evaluated.