
Facebook allows Force Joining of Groups - feint
http://calacanis.com/2010/10/07/email-i-sent-to-zuckerberg-sheryl-over-force-join-groups-on-facebook/
======
DrJokepu
I just deleted my Facebook profile a couple of weeks ago. I'm not one of those
tinfoil hat privacy nazis who worry a lot about that kind of stuff, I just
simply don't enjoy Facebook anymore and there's too much shady stuff going on.
If you don't mind this then go ahead and use it to "connect with your friends"
but personally I think Facebook became seriously uncool recently and I don't
think that's going to change. I'm not boycotting or anything, I'm not mad at
them, I just simply don't enjoy it anymore.

~~~
chopsueyar
Heretic!

Seriously, though, can you elaborate on how Facebook 'became seriously uncool
recently'?

What issues caused your loss of enjoyment?

~~~
DrJokepu
It's complicated and should really be written as a long blogpost rant and not
as a comment but I will try to summarize it. Basically the problems are
twofold: things that are inherent to all social networks and things that are
Facebook-specific.

One thing I noticed on social networks with a very large userbase (the
definition of a social network having a very large userbase is my mum being
registered on it) is that the more life you have, the less likely that you're
using it, hence the more boring person someone is, the more they post/comment
on social networks, hence most of the user-generated "content" on Facebook is
incredibly boring. This is very different from "small" networks where most
users are "cool", "trendsetter" people. Obviously this is an
oversimplification and I have really interesting friends who are on Facebook
all the time, but it's still a generic rule none the less and it makes the
whole experience more boring.

My particular problem with Facebook is that I simply don't get what's going
on; who can see what. I mean, which action of mine will be posted on my wall,
who will be able to see it, etc. This may not sound very humble but I consider
myself a reasonably intelligent person but still with all that brainpower I
just can't tell whether my theoretical ex-girlfriend can see the photos of me
that my theoretical current girlfriend of mine posted and if she can, how to
disable it. I mean, these are everyday trivial problems that average people
living a normal life face, this is not just being afraid of the government /
snake headed aliens mining your super secret personal data. Do I really want
to show my theoretical drunk party photos with my old headmistress from my
elementary school? But then how do I share them with my closest friends? The
whole thing is just too much hassle so I wouldn't ever bother posting
interesting stuff. Which leads to most people (or at least the intelligent
ones) only posting boring, "politically correct" things that wouldn't offend
even their old headmistress. Which leads to boring content.

~~~
praptak
_"My particular problem with Facebook is that I simply don't get what's going
on; who can see what. I mean, which action of mine will be posted on my wall,
who will be able to see it, etc."_

Given their track record it is safe to assume that everything you do will be
public. If not now, then at some point in the future.

~~~
brianpan
This is pretty much what it's come to. But it's confusing in the midst of this
slow bait-and-switch.

When I signed up for facebook, a big reason was the confirmation of "real-
life" friends. Facebook was different than blogs or myspace because the
network was "real". We were sharing with our real friends. This is becoming
less and less the case. Which means privacy is slowly eroding in a non-obvious
way. Sure I can just start assuming everything is completely public but 1) my
friends/contacts don't always realize it and 2) without the real privacy, why
not just move to blogs, etc. where it's clear?

------
kmavm
The reasoning here is the same as photo tagging, or wall posts. Friends can
tag "you" in photos without your explicit acceptance of the tag. You have a
much more powerful tool for preventing "prank" photo tags/wall posts/group
joins than Facebook could ever invent technologically: social pressure. To
wit, these people are nominally your friends; even if you've been somewhat
promiscuous, and they're just your coworker, or acquaintance, or distant
family member, you still have much more leverage over their behavior than
Facebook ever will.

So, if Joe Idiot tags you in a photo of a goat, or joins you in an embarassing
group: a) untag/unjoin yourself, and b) tell Joe THAT WAS NOT COOL.
Optionally, unfriend Joe. I.e., exactly what you would have done if Joe wrote
a blog post about your embarrassing medical problem, or put you on a mailing
list you do not like.

~~~
bps4484
I can choose in the privacy settings who sees what I'm tagged in.
Specifically, I can say that tags are only seen by me, which would effectively
turn off tagging. Can I do this with groups? I've tried, but can't seem to
find it anywhere in the settings. If anyone knows, please share, I'm very
interested in turning it off.

------
wccrawford
Why does Facebook have such a history of bad decisions like this?

I -just- rejoined Facebook yesterday due to the fact that I seemed to be
missing out on too many opportunities by boycotting it, and my 6-month-long
boycott has made absolutely no dent in their popularity.

~~~
Tichy
Can you list some of the opportunities? I have an account, but no idea what to
do with it.

~~~
lliiffee
As a facebook non-joiner myself, I find that I miss out on a lot of baby
pictures, knowledge of other people's birthdays, and (a few) parties.

~~~
quattrofan
I would regard that as a benefit.

~~~
lliiffee
That reminds me of another effect: I am thought of as a person that regards
missing these things as a benefit!

------
Das_Bruce
A good first test to see whether something is possibly a bad idea is to give
it to a 13 year old boy and see if he makes dick jokes with it. This feature
seems ripe for the picking.

~~~
pvg
By that test, there are probably no good ideas at all. Except maybe the moms
of 13 year-old boys.

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
Oh, they'll make jokes about those too.

------
powrtoch
Surely I'm not the only one to notice that apparently Facebook users number
"500 people and growing"?

~~~
fossuser
Not only that, but he also spells the acronym two different ways "NABLA" and
"NAMBLA", don't know which one is the actual name. You'd think he'd mildly
proofread his writing right?

~~~
sp332
The screenshot says NAMBLA, so he actually misspelled it as NABLA twice.

~~~
StavrosK
It's North American Man/Boy Love Association, so NAMBLA. Don't you guys watch
South Park?

~~~
nollidge
South Park did not invent it; it is a real organization.

Try not to think about that too much, though.

~~~
StavrosK
I know it is; South Park popularised it.

------
raquo
However, from Facebook help center:

> Similar to being tagged in a photo, you can only be added to a group by one
> of your friends.

Maybe you either don't really need 61532 "friends" or Facebook should have a
distinction between Friends and contacts.

Not saying that's a reasonable feature, but still.

~~~
chopsueyar
Everyone is an equal in Facebook, just like in real life.

------
joshklein
Not to suggest I disagree with JC, but in addition to advocating opt-in, he
should have less shitty "friends".

~~~
shareme
or maybe stop baiting Aron Wall?

------
notahacker
People playing pranks like this was the first thing I thought of when I read
the headlines about Facebook "streamlining" group membership. And yes, some of
my actual friends would invite me to some very silly in-joke groups that I
wouldn't voluntarily join.

The potential problems are reduced if these groups are private and _will
remain_ private in future versions of Facebook.

------
NZ_Matt
This isn't as bad as it looks.

Only your friends can add you into groups. You also don't have to participate
in the group and they have made it very easy to leave. Jason is not a typical
user and probably has a lot of crappy friends due to accepting requests from
anyone. Adding an accept option would only add an unnecessary layer without
changing much.

~~~
uptown
"Only your friends can add you into groups."

And how many of your "friends" are ACTUALLY your "friends"? As much as it was
once fun to reconnect with somebody I shared an elementary-school classroom
with, that's a connection I'll need to revisit if they're given the power to
latch my profile onto whatever cause they want ... implying my support of that
movement.

Facebook seems to have created Groups as their implementation of Twitter
Lists. I can create a list and call it whatever I choose ... adding whomever I
choose to it. But my sense is that the perception of a Facebook Group is
different than a Twitter List because Facebook already has/had the concept of
groups, and they DID require opt-in.

~~~
rb2k_
> And how many of your "friends" are ACTUALLY your "friends"?

100%, but I seem to be in a minority with that decision

~~~
sofuture
I'd say about 70%.

The other 30% are family -- lord knows I'd defriend them in an instant if we
didn't have to see each other on the holidays!

------
Mistone
I'm sure Zuck and Sandberg went straight for the delete button on that email.
"Oh its linkbait Calcanis ranting about something stupid and trolling for an
Adviser gig."

Its so odd, I do really like JCal's stance on other issues (paid pitching
groups) but his fb rants are annoying.

He should have wrote them a thank you letter for delivering an easy to use
tool for exporting all content rather than just a simple PS mention.

~~~
wyclif
No, in this case Calacanis had a point. Facebook shouldn't be allowing force
joins to sketchy groups.

~~~
Mistone
fb's is following their social design process of solving problems. the
solution to someone joining you to a sketchy group is also solved by social
design - you un-join, un-friend the person, and post quick status update
stating you think the group is crap and call out the person that signed you
up. Its not totally ideal but there are clear social repercussions for such
bad behavior, which is an advantage of social design.

------
indigoviolet
Didn't Calacanis leave Facebook?

~~~
scorpion032
Exactly!! He made a big deal of it, saying he was done with it. People seem to
have a bad memory!!

~~~
wyclif
Just because he commented on the feature doesn't mean he's using it.

------
tocomment
I'm not sure if this is related. I clicked "like" on an article someone posted
(or I thought was an article) and now new articles from that company seems to
be showing up in my news feed. What's the deal with that?

~~~
mbreese
It's not related, but when you like a page, the owner of that page can now
post directly to your wall.

------
callumjones
I'm over Jason's constant Facebook trolling, it's distracting from his cool
work with the startup scene.

------
nickdunkman
Unless you are POTUS, don't put your middle name in your email signatures.
It's pretentious.

~~~
noahth
The whole sig struck me as over-the-top and obnoxious, personally. "HERE IS A
LIST SHOWING HOW IMPORTANT I AM."

Hint - if you're really important, all you need to sign is your name.

~~~
epochwolf
Indeed.

~ epochwolf

