• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • I am kinda talked out about the anti-vaxxer movement—we had an amazing 70+ post thread over the past three weeks where I learned a lot about a lot of stuff related to it.

      But I think it was @Factotum who brought up in that thread the idea that conspiracy theory groups in general are thriving on Facebook.

      Taking it one step further, how is Facebook going to protect members of private groups from Russian troll influence during the election season next year?

      Oh wait! Maybe this is Zuck’s plan all along: deny any responsibility by allowing it to occur behind closed doors in private groups. He can make the public view look squeaky clean and say that they are removing SO MUCH misinformation from public timelines.

      Sorry but this sounds like the same old smoke and mirrors from the Mark & Sheryl show.

    • Well, whatever gets Facebook to take privacy seriously, I'm all for it. It remains to be seen how this 'new Zuck' will change FB internal processes - which we probably won't know for quite some time. Until stuff like this stops happening regularly, it's all just talk.

      As to the heart of the matter - there is merit to what he said. Facebook was created for sharing personal stuff, and that inevitably works better if audience isn't the whole wide world, and there for all eternity, indexable and searchable. That is opposed to Cake, which is here for people to talk about their interests, something for which you naturally want to widest audience possible.

      There is place for both, I think.

    • Mark published a post today that seemed to say they're taking Facebook in the opposite direction of Cake. We stand for better public conversation, they are going in the direction of more walled gardens.

      Generally speaking, I think this is not a bad thing to do. Cake and this hypothetical "new Facebook" are on opposite ends of a spectrum of what I would consider "well-behaving online groups".

      In the other conversation @apm mentioned (and thanks for tagging me into this one! :)), I brought up the idea of groups being bad if they are both huge and closed at the same time. To expand on that idea, consider "group size" and "group openness" (as in, to what extent can non-members see that a group even exists, see what the group talks about and potentially become a part of the conversation?) as two axes of a graph.

      If a large group is "too closed", we're dealing with a lack of control. Without disagreeing but valid other opinions from outside the current group, the set of opinions that currently exist can easily become self-reinforcing - leading to anti-vaxxing, overboarding racism/nationalism, domestic terrorism, ...

      On the other hand, if a small group is "too open", that's typically a lack of privacy. If I want to share vacation images with my family, discuss a new product or functionality with colleagues or plan a schedule for the next year with club members - I don't want the world to see. If people outside of the current group can access this information, this is a privacy problem. If they can even join the group and participate in conversations where they don't belong, we're potentially dealing with trolling, harassment, doxxing, ...

      In the middle of the graph, along the diagonal, is an area for online groups that (at least in theory) should behave better than that. Cake is somewhere towards the upper right end of this area, while "new Facebook" would be somewhere towards the lower left.

      As others have pointed out, Facebook as a company is not to be trusted - but the general idea of having small&private communities is valid in my opinion.

    • Is FB really going to change to a point that advertisers go "Hmmm...I'm not getting my money's worth, I think I'll spend my money at ..." ?

      I heard one story that 15 million users since 2017 have left FB over their privacy concerns.


      With 2.3 billion they (Zuck) really care?