

Facebook now informs the sender if you've read their message - mayneack
https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=316575021742112#How-do-I-know-if-a-friend-has-seen-a-message-I-sent?

======
DanBlake
This is a very slippery slope for FB, I feel. No real way to hide from those
you want to ignore now.

Next up: Let you see who is searching for you / browsed your photo albums /
etc.. ???

Very "badoo-esque" I think- Not that its a bad thing, it just feels out of
place here. FB is not a dating site.

~~~
gaius
_No real way to hide from those you want to ignore now._

Then, umm, don't add them as friends.

BBM has statuses for delivered (the message has arrived on the recipients
device) and read (they have actually opened it). It's very very useful. You
know at a glance where a conversation stands, you never have to "follow-up" to
check a message arrived, you know if a message isn't in state D not to bother
because they'll be out of reception, etc. It basically makes a BBM
conversation much more natural than on SMS, or any of the big chat networks.

~~~
adgar
> Then, umm, don't add them as friends.

This completely ignores the reality of how people use Facebook, as if one
could partition every personal relationship in your life into two homogeneous
groups "friends" and "not friends."

Yes, I know you can have friend lists on Facebook, but this feature clearly
_embraces_ its uniformity.

~~~
gaius
It's worth noting that G+ was intended to solve the fine-grained partitioning
of people, and yet, no-one I know uses it regularly. It's FB for friends,
LinkedIn for work contacts, for most people.

~~~
adgar
> It's worth noting that G+ was intended to solve the fine-grained
> partitioning of people, and yet, no-one I know uses it regularly.

So... you're arguing that people choose social networks based on more than the
presence of a particular implementation of a single feature? Groundbreaking
addition to your "all your friends are the same" theory.

~~~
gaius
No, I'm arguing that partitioning of friends groups isn't a serious (enough)
problem that anyone cares.

------
mikeleeorg
Here's a way to get around letting Facebook know you've read someone's
message:

I'm one of those people who likes the little red notifications showing when
I've received a FB message. I don't check FB's messages often, so without that
notification, I forget to follow up on FB messages.

My work-around is to have FB send me an email notification whenever someone
writes me a message via FB. Then I read that message in my email reader
instead of through the FB UI.

I also have all email images turned off for performance and privacy reasons.

It seems to me you could do this too, and avoid having FB inform the sender
that you've read their message.

~~~
gaving
Here's another way to get around letting Facebook know you've read someone's
message:

Delete your facebook account.

~~~
moron
Sure, and you can cure a rash on your arm by cutting the arm off.

~~~
moheeb
Actually the rash is probably some type of bacterial or fungal infection that
will live on the arm for quite a while regardless of whether or not that arm
is connected to your body.

Most other causes of rash would allow that rash to reappear on another
appendage. Only if the rash results from contact with something (poison
ivy,etc.) would cutting off the arm 'cure' it.

------
fauigerzigerk
It's amazing how Facebook can still come up with more reasons for me not to
use them. For me, it's a feature of asynchronous communication that you're not
pressured to read it immediately and you get think time between reading and
replying without the other end getting agitated.

------
wunki
No! It's of no interest to the sender when somebody has read their message.
When building our invitation application we also had a feature that showed
when somebody opened your invitation. But we quickly noticed that it was
annoying because when you knew the sender would be notified, you wouldn't open
the invitation to read it if you weren't sure you had the time to respond.
It's the same with WhatsApp, the "social" pressure to respond because the
other person knows you have read the message.

------
veridies
Ugh. The feature has no purpose besides notifying people you're ignoring or
haven't yet gotten around to. Not to mention that it's way too close to
OKCupid's design where you can see visitors; I'd like to browse with some
semblance of privacy.

~~~
shaggyfrog
If you're roaming around on Facebook's turf, you should probably keep your
privacy expectations low.

~~~
veridies
Admittedly, and I avoid it as much as possible. But while pretty much everyone
assumes that anything they do online will be public, they don't assume that
anywhere they go will be public too. Passive browsing has a very strong
expectation of privacy and if you dismantle that without strong warnings ahead
of time, some people are going to get burned badly.

------
mfringel
I think the right answer might be writing a tool that uses the Facebook API to
"open" your message and immediately reply saying "OpenAllMessages just opened
your message. The actual person will read it when they get around to it."

~~~
dclowd9901
While a cheeky solution, I can almost guarantee FB would block it, citing some
sort of TOS clause.

------
reneherse
AOL did this back in the 90's for any mail sent within the confines of its
walled garden. You could also _unsend_ a message.

At the time, I believe the purpose was to engender a sense of trust in "the
new medium of email." Obviously that's not the purpose of the implementation
on FB.

So, what _is_ the purpose?

Maybe it's the extremely late hour, but my cynical feeling is that this seems
really a psychologically driven feature... driven by some kind of awkward,
socially obsessive mindset.

~~~
nicknyc
If someone hasn't read your message in a month that means a different thing
than no response for a month. Some would assume you said the wrong thing, etc.
Also remember Facebook is software- which can fail. Maybe this is also a way
to help reduce message delivery failure- with email you might get a message
bounce back if the send failed. If a Facebook message failed to deliver due to
bugs, hardware failure, etc how would a user know? If they don't know they
probably won't complain to the FB message API developer/manager who has a
"can't reproduce", "intermittent", "sometimes occurs" bug.

~~~
loceng
If it's important you'll find another way to contact them.

The logic behind using it to show if they fail or not doesn't work. The system
that would identify if a message was sent would be tied into the messaging
system; They should have this if it's possible, though they don't need to make
the results known.

------
FaceKicker
Has anyone seen this happen in chat yet (I don't use FB chat much)? The
example image shows it in a group chat (and the text also says "That way, you
always know who got the message, and who didn't.", which semi-implies multiple
receivers) - does it also happen with just one-on-one chat or is it possible
it only happens in group chat? Doing this in group chat seems at least
somewhat less invasive, as each person is less likely to be expected to reply
in a group chat (and hence wouldn't be as likely to be interpreted as
"ignoring" the sender and might have more common legitimate purposes like, as
the example image shows, updating people on meeting times/locations).

~~~
jamalex
Yes, I saw it a day or two ago, in a one-on-one chat. And now I feel bad for
not having responded to someone else when I was busy, as they may have
received a similar notice.

------
konstruktor
Aren't they shooting themselves in the foot with this? People seem to love
checking out their acquaintances, so enabling some mild "stalking" seems to be
part of FB's appeal. If that becomes visible and thus awkward, it could make
them a less attractive platform.

------
K2h
This is like Outlooks read-receipts, which I refuse to use or [immediately]
acknowledge when someone attaches one.

For those that want to be slightly evil, save all these messages in your
archived folder, and at the end of the year - select all, read all: and you'll
hear screams from across the office from all the guilty parties that attach
read receipts as they will get their inbox flooded from all of your
confirmations.

~~~
moheeb
I love this suggestion!

I always leave Outlook set to 'Prompt' me for read receipts. That way I know
which people are annoying. I always DENY.

Read-Receipts have to be the most passive aggressive feature ever coded.

------
nakkiel
Want to show your discontempt? Click on "Was this answer useful?" Then, "I
didn't like the answer" (from memory).

~~~
mahmud
contempt + discontent = discontempt? ;-)

~~~
nakkiel
Wow. English really is a broken language. Thanks for the fix. I'll leave my
comment as-is for posterity.

------
s_henry_paulson
As someone that doesn't like facebook, I find this a very useful feature.

I rarely ever check facebook, don't have it on my phone, don't get their
e-mails, etc, but haven't deleted it just yet because maybe there are some
people from my past that I don't communicate with that I might like to some
day.

People who are on facebook all the time don't understand that not everyone who
has an account will always see their messages, and even though I've repeatedly
told family members to e-mail me, they still try to send me messages.

This feature would help people to realize that I'm not actually reading
facebook messages on a regular basis.

People that want to contact me, know how to contact me. Family members.. well
they're not always the brightest bunch.

------
Spoom
Good thing I get Facebook messages by email. Even if they're using an email
image bug to set the "read" status, I'll just avoid downloading images. Sorry,
but when I read your message to me is up to me, and whether or not I read it
is private.

------
Valmount
There have been times where I've actually wished they had a feature like this.
Now that it's here, can't say I care for it much. In some cases, this denies
me the opportunity to move at my own pace and come up with a well advised
response.

------
walru
What's funny is, not having this feature is one of the main reasons I moved
over from myspace. Having your every message now visibly tracked is not a good
way to entice new people, who are worried about their privacy, to stick
around.

Does this move mean that FB has reached its saturation point and now the best
way to instantiate more clicks is to prey on our insecurities? Who knows.
However, it does feel like I've read this script somewhere before. If we're
lucky, maybe next we can see how many times our profile has been viewed.

~~~
drivingmenuts
By this action, I think they're assuming a closeness in relationships that
doesn't always exist. I tend to read messages from close actual friends fairly
quickly, but messages from people I have friended who aren't really friends
will get read ... maybe: maybe next week, maybe in a couple of months, maybe
never. I don't feel that those relationships need any notification of this
either.

------
paulsutter
If I have Facebook in a background tab, and a message appears, will it say i
read it? I keep Facebook in a background tab 24x7, but only look at Facebook
about once every 2 or 3 days.

~~~
biafra
Find out and report back, please!

------
Row
This is like those horrible read receipts in Outlook. When I read and reply to
a message is my business. Facebook is just going to create an atmosphere where
the sender gets miffed because the receiver read the message and didn't reply
for x hours/days and the receiver is going to resent the sender and Facebook
for creating this obligation which they have to deal with now so as not to
offend the sender.

------
biafra
Isn't the messaging xmpp based? Does my xmpp client tell fb that I read a
message? I understand this can work on the web where fb has full control.

~~~
GuiA
Yes, FB messaging is XMPP, and whether your client tells fb or not obviously
depends on your client, specifically whether it implements XEP-0184 (still in
draft) or not:

<http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0184.html>

~~~
latch
Not sure how this is _obvious_ to people who don't follow XMPP draft
discussions.

~~~
GuiA
Sorry, didn't mean to be rude. I meant that it was obvious that it was up to
the client to send read receipts or not (you could easily just take an open
source XMPP client and comment out the line that sends read receipts), not
that the relevant XMPP draft was obvious.

------
quadrant
A SpySpace style add on for Facebook (a hacked together java/action/?script
exploiting piece of code that trapped users viewing your page, their ip,
clipboard, etc) would net Facebook a large chunk of revenue as an add on
feature.

I loved having SpySpace installed, certainly made MySpace, and trolling
friends based off the contents of their clipboards, a whole lot of (somewhat
nebulous) fun.

------
alexweber
FWIW, I tested this a bit with a friend, and it only shows that you've read
the message if you're signed in to FB chat. I always stay offline and the
sender was not able to see the read-receipt.

------
jeez
There's the email hack where you can insert an image and check the server logs
later to see if (and how many times) it was viewed. Its a hack, and not a
feature, for a reason. :\

~~~
mike-cardwell
Most sane email clients have automatic loading of remote content disabled by
default. The iOS client doesn't. There are loads of similar tricks to the img
tag one. Many clients which attempt to disable the automatic loading of remote
content fail in different ways. I built an automated web based tool which
sends you a specially crafted email which attempts many of these tricks. You
can see it here: <https://emailprivacytester.com/>

------
laconian
I've used other online communities that have implemented this feature. It's
creepy, esp. when you get messages from people that you would prefer to
silently ignore.

------
djhworld
this is just for messages directed at people personally.

I don't see it as being that much different to read receipts or any other form
of messaging software

~~~
msg
The difference is you can't turn it off.

People have different expectations when using this software. I think I've
logged on once in the past 6 months. A heavy user who sends me a message and
expects, but does not see, a read receipt may think I'm deliberately giving
them the cold shoulder.

I want the freedom to not respond or read in privacy. Let them think it was
spam filtered or lost in the shuffle.

Yet another reason Facebook is not for me.

~~~
peteretep
Sounds like quite the opposite. If I sent you a message, and saw there was no
read receipt, I'll assume you haven't logged in. Without it, I assume you read
it and didn't reply...

~~~
msg
Like I said, people have different expectations. You can also see when people
are logged into Facebook because they are available to chat with. How would
you react if they were logged in but you didn't have a read receipt? Or there
was a receipt but they didn't respond?

Anyhow, this is all just proving the point. Read receipts introduce a piece of
"evidence" that is bound to be misinterpreted. So I don't like them and
they're yet another feature hostile to some customers in Facebook.

------
mayneack
I also haven't found a way to turn it off.

~~~
eblackburn
I think I read somewhere that FB embed sound tags in their html to simulate
the images trick.

~~~
mike-cardwell
Yes, they use the bgsound tag. That's one of the many tests that the Email
Privacy Tester uses: <https://emailprivacytester.com/>

------
manmal
Well, there goes my use of Facebook messages. There is a reason SMS and email
read-notifications were failures.

------
qq66
You can have Facebook email your messages to you, and just read them there
without the other party knowing.

~~~
sp332
Facebook knows when you open your emails too.
[http://pandodaily.com/2012/03/06/facebook-knows-when-you-
ope...](http://pandodaily.com/2012/03/06/facebook-knows-when-you-open-their-
emails-how-creepy-silent-sounds/)

~~~
qq66
yikes, creepy. Glad I use Chrome.

------
coryl
IMO, this isn't a big deal? Don't most mobile messaging apps do this, like
BBM, Kik, etc etc.?

~~~
vidarh
There's a different starting expectation: Anything that fits in the "instant
messaging" batch is often used when people wants immediate interaction.

It annoys me to no end - being old school enough to finding it completely
acceptable to send a question to someone over IM, and expect them to get it
and deal with it later, while many of my co-workers etc. will start any IM
conversation with "are you there?" or "hi" and expect a back and forth to
confirm this is "live" before telling me what it's about, and effectively
removing the choice of dealing with it right away. That's a substitute for the
system telling them the message has or will be read.

With that usage pattern - as a slightly less intrusive substitute for a phone
call or face to face encounter - knowing that you're not talking to an empty
chair helps.

This change effectively shifts Facebook messages further towards the IM
spectrum away from the e-mail/letter spectrum. Many e-mail systems support
read-receipts, but most people never use them, exactly because a large part of
sending an e-mail is that you acknowledge the recipient may want to deal with
the message in their own time, or perhaps not at all.

And that's probably why Facebook wants this change: To increase user
engagement by getting users to feel more of an obligation to reply and to
reply quickly.

------
dewiz
it used to be like this with phpbb, so it is not a news really. but as bad as
phpbb was, this is annoying too.

fb should make it an option in the privacy settings, as it is with email
systems where you can opt out from the message receipts.

~~~
FuzzyDunlop
It still is, as of the latest version. Messages can be edited or deleted up
until the point where they've been read. Then they're moved from your 'outbox'
to a 'sent' folder.

I'm not entirely certain of what my opinion on this sort of thing really is.

------
dominik
How do I turn this off?

------
jeggers5
Is this only for group messages?

