
Facebook Is Getting Rid of “Secret” or “Closed” Groups - danso
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/facebook-is-getting-rid-of-secret-or-closed-facebook-groups
======
matthewowen
This seems like a misleading headline: as far as I understand it you can still
have the same effect: they've just made it an additional property of private
groups instead of a whole separate category.

~~~
sebazzz
It is obviously clickbait albeit the title being technically correct. I would
not have clicked it if the title mentioned the access level was being renamed.

------
javagram
So the difference is that they are renaming secret to private to reflect that
they will be scanning the content of groups to review for content?

“the company has built a new tool called Group Quality, which scans all groups
for content that breaks the platform's community standards — regardless of
privacy settings”

~~~
bcherny
I think the goal of renaming is to make it easier for people to understand. So
when you post/comment in a group, you know exactly who will see it.

Not sure why Group Quality was included in this PR.

------
papln
If I read correctly, then a correct headline would be "Facebook is adding non-
discoverable Public groups", renaming Secret/Closed groups,and getting rid of
nothing.

~~~
heavymark
Yes, people here know click bait titles work which is why we are all here
reading this and commenting on it.

------
dymk
Misleading, but it's BuzzFeed, so what do you expect.

Facebook is essentially changing Groups so instead of 3 categories with
inherent discoverability rules (Public (find via search), Private (find via
search), Secret (can not find via search)), they're separating the concerns of
"Can non-members view posts?" and "Can non-members find this group via
search?"

So this is actually now more flexible!

------
lclarkmichalek
> Group admins will have the option to have public or private groups and also
> be able to toggle whether the group is visible in search results.

------
btxxa
They're basically renaming the options, but they will remain. Great clickbait,
Buzzfeed! Never change.

------
parliament32
It's literally the same thing, just one setting for Public/Private, and a
second for Visible/Not. Title is super clickbaity, they're not getting rid of
anything.

I thought buzzfeednews was supposed to be better than classic buzzfeed, but I
see they're really not.

------
unethical_ban
Clickbait trash title. Makes it sound like there will be no privacy on groups,
perhaps in response to something.

They are renaming them with the same functionality, broken into two toggles.

------
dfeojm-zlib
I tried FB in early ~2000's because I had a @stanford email, but after a
coworker's wife started tagging people and editorializing randomly, it was
clearly more of a liability than value. I had emptied details and most content
but kept for some old photos, but finally migrated and purged it this year
because it's basically a vehicle of surprise privacy monetization to make Wall
St. happy. If a social media service instead were instead subscriber- and
donation-supported, it wouldn't develop such perverse incentives to sell-out
its users to stay afloat.

~~~
cstejerean
Good for you. What does it have to do with the story?

~~~
dfeojm-zlib
Facebook's accumulation of a pattern of making major, surprise changes that
are mostly about benefiting money-making, directly or indirectly. Super
popular but seemingly more and more terrible as time goes on.

