
The FriendFeedization Of Facebook Continues: Bret Taylor Promoted To CTO - aditya
http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/02/facebook-cto-bret-taylor/
======
thwarted
I'll believe it when I see it. I find Friendfeed simple and Facebook complex.
Facebook can't become more like Friendfeed without giving up what makes
Facebook Facebook. Friendfeed is first for people who use _the rest of
Internet_. Facebook is for people who only use Facebook and the rest of the
Internet secondarily.

It would be great if the Facebook news/activity feed worked liked Friendfeed,
where highly active entries float to the top. So much good content gets buried
on Facebook, since Facebook focuses on _new_ entries, rather than ones that
your network considers interesting (activity worthy, through comments and
likes). I don't know what the system is by which Facebook decides to include
things in the "Top News" list vs the "Most Recent", but the Top News is rarely
fresh, the most interesting to me, or the most active.

It would also be great if Facebook had the kind of quality of integration with
other sites that Friendfeed has. On Facebook, everything needs to be an
application, with its own permissions that one needs to worry about. This
seems to overly complicate the action "insert this content into my stream"
that RSS enables. I originally disagreed with Friendfeed reducing the
prominence of where a piece of content came from by removing the service
icons, but now I think this properly leads the focus to the item itself rather
than the service that was used. But Friendfeed's content hiding ability is
still fine-grained enough allow management by service.

Friendfeed integrates with other sites through accepted standards, like RSS
and Atom, or through a bookmarklet which the user controls. In order to
integrate with Facebook, each website needs to be modified to work
specifically with Facebook, which isn't portable to other social networking
sites (which is, of course, in Facebook's best interest to lock you, and other
websites, in).

