

“Public” should not be the default - hernangarcia
http://blog.twitalbums.com/public-should-not-be-the-default

======
seldo
This seems to be conflating two issues. One is that Facebook has changed their
default profile privacy recently, which is a real issue that got a lot of
press.

The second is specifically their album privacy settings, which are not a
million miles away in complexity from twitalbum's own and include the very
useful "except for" feature.

It looks like the author is trying to hitch a ride on popular discomfort with
default-publicity to advertise their service, even though it's not
substantially different.

I'm not Facebook's biggest fan or anything, but this just looks like a naked
grab for publicity.

~~~
fabiandesimone
About the "except for" feature:

Is our believe that is easier for a user to choose which users get to see
something rather that to choose from say 500 friends which ones do not.

More than publicity, we are trying to start a discussion. It helps us create a
better service based on valid arguments.

------
DanielStraight
Wait... doesn't their example show the more public options checked by default?

~~~
fabiandesimone
Hi Daniel, indeed it does.

Actually I think you are referring specifically to:

"Let members invite others to the Album"

There are two reasons for this:

1\. We make it VERY easy to be private. If you wish to have control over each
user that has access to your album, just un-check that and you are done.

2\. We believe we are private by default because if you create an album and
I'm not invited by you or one of your friends (that you previously invited) I
can't see the album. That is different than being able to see your media for
the simple fact that if I'm friends with one of your friends without being
invited.

~~~
scott_s
If the more public option is the default, then you can not claim to be
"private by default." Further, if someone else can invite others to see
something of mine, then you are removing my control of privacy.

My personal view is that if you put something on the internet, it's not
private. My Facebook account and everything I put in it are public - I find
it's easier for me to answer the question "Do I want the whole world to know
this?" versus understanding the complicated network-visibility rules in
Facebook. In other words, I don't fault Facebook or Twitpic for defaulting to
public options. But don't _claim_ that you default to private do when you
clearly do not.

------
stuartjmoore
Public: bad for you, good for everyone else.

I was thinking about a service that lets you add notes to books last night. My
first thought was that every note had to default to public. Why? So you would
contribute to the greater community without having to think about it. If you
truly wanted to keep a secret, it would be an option.

BUT, this service is very far off from what Facebook let's you upload and
share. Though, the point is the same, they're being selfish at individual
user's expense.

~~~
fabiandesimone
I agree with you that a service that lets you add notes to book should be
public. I think a service like that has a different nature than Twitalbums.com

------
deternoz
I m agree with this.

