4 ms·
> big oversight on the part of Facebook IMHO. Status updates != tweets For one thing, most status updates aren't public. It would be absolutely horrifying if
by beedogs 12y ago
> big oversight on the part of Facebook IMHO.
Status updates != tweets
For one thing, most status updates aren't public. It would be absolutely horrifying if they suddenly became so, just to be fed into a search engine.
- thomasfoster96 12y agoFacebook is certainly testing a public status updates firehose: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/public_feed/ https://developers.facebook.com/docs/public_feed/
- cryptoz 12y agoThat depends on who you are. For a very important segment of users, Status Updates == Tweets. Additionally, from the perspective of their followers, it would not be horrifying if those suddenly became more public. In fact, for certain users, that may be preferred. Social networks are weird to talk about on forums online since everyone has such personal experiences with them. I think that this taints our perspective more than usual, and makes it more difficult to properly assess their real value. Not to take sides over FB vs TWTR. But, your "absolutely horrifying" could very well be everyone else's "absolute best case".
- TeMPOraL 12y agoAs a person who has his status updates default to public on purpose, I agree. And yes, it's hard to talk about social networks because there's a very vocal group here insisting that using Facebook = being dumb and/or making selfies and/or being terribly security-unconsciosus. Facebook ecosystem has its problem, but it's also an excellent communication tool.