• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Ow, I'm sorry. I had my own shocking dramas with Facebook Groups.

      First, someone invited me to a closed group and I got auto-added. I figured the auto-add feature was a product of the growth at any costs team. It wasn't a group I wanted my name associated with but I was busy and anyway, it was closed, right? What could go wrong?

      I didn't realize that closed meant open as far as being able to see who was a member and a few days later I was embarrassed in a meeting when someone called me out for being a member of the group. It's the first time I really became aware of how important online privacy could be.

      Second, some wonderful gay teens I knew had joined a secret group as they struggled with what to do about coming out. They didn't know that, until a group has 5,000 members, the admin can change the group to be closed or public, which this one did. And that's how their parents found out they were gay.

      The product manager for Slack explained why you can't do that in a private Slack channel: it's about values trumping growth at all costs. That's why the default at Slack is to not notify you of activity when you might be sleeping. Big data would say do it, more engagement. Values would say let them sleep unless they explicitly tell us they want notifications at night.

      I hope we will always be like Slack and put values first, growth second.

    • Indeed. Elsewhere I speculated that G+ was axed because Google could not sufficiently monetise revenue from it. Whilst one might imagine that the likes of Google have so much cash that they did not need to worry about such mundane commercial considerations, the fact is that this is a listed business with publicly traded stock. That changes a lot of things. I remain of the opinion that the platform succumbed to the old fashioned problem of being unprofitable.