How Facebook Ruined Comments (at Least For One Writer)

harrymcc writes "Back in late March, Facebook finally introduced a feature which lets you reply to a specific comment on an update. But at the same time, it started reshuffling the order of comments in an attempt to put the best ones at the top. The change only applies to Pages and to the Profiles of people with more than 10,000 followers, but it's driving me crazy. Over at TIME.com, I explain why."

Comments

link in the article doesn't work

[prelelat]

It didn't seem to work for me so I went to http://techland.time.com/2013/05/12 and then was able to browse to the article.

Here's the actual link see if it works if you have issues http://techland.time.com/2013/05/12/facebook-comments/

Re:You know who else had things ruined?

[Anonymous Coward]

True dat. All of the cares in my life have been overwhelmed by explosions that don't affect me, and have already been over-reported, and a case about kidnapped girls that are white enough that you know you will be hearing about them for the next year.

So there is absolutely no room whatsoever in my tiny heart, or my pea brain, not to mention my millisecond attention span, to possibly read anything else, ever. Get back to me next year... unless someone blows something up again or kidnaps some girls.

An Extremely Decent video on the subject

[symbolset]

Facebook updates in real life.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

The clip is great. Here's what I don't get: WHY do people keep using that shit, when so many seem to hate it so much?

I hate broccoli. You know what? I don't eat it every day and then bitch about how horrible it is. Why would anyone keep using a service that they seem to dislike as much as they do?

Are they insane, or masochists, or what? I mean, it isn't like people were talking with other people, keeping up to date, and planning things to do together with friends, on the internet for decades before FB came along, or anything... Or is it that they believe they need a for-profit data-harvester in the middle, in order to talk to people?

Seriously, WTF?

O

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject

[crutchy]

prolly cos they just want to... i dunno... keep in touch with their friends and family. there used to be facebook for that

myspace died because it became popular as a simple social networking platform and then commercial interests took over and killed it

then facebook took over from where myspace failed

(peering into future some)

facebook died because it became popular as a simple social networking platform and then commercial interests took over and killed it

then the borg took over from where facebook failed

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

prolly cos they just want to... i dunno... keep in touch with their friends and family.

What on earth makes you think you need Facebook to do that?

I've been "keeping in touch with friends and family" online for a long time before Facebook was even a gleam in Zucks eye.

Handy tip: you don't need Facebook to do that. It's bizarre to talk to people about it. It's like they live in some alternate reality where FB is the only way to communicate with people on the internet. It's not. It never was.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject

[SJHillman]

We get it, you don't have Facebook and feel the need to tell the world they don't need it either so that you can feel superior by being different.
I don't have cable TV, but I at least understand that some people feel that TV has value and thus subscribe to it so I'm not going to go around telling everyone that because I don't want TV they shouldn't want it either.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

myspace died because it became popular as a simple social networking platform and then commercial interests took over and killed it

That can be said for all of the Internet.

The one true law of the Internet was, is, and should always be, that there are no laws.

The only reason for laws is that there is limited space and resources which people have to share. But on the Internet, there is unlimited virtual space and everyone can put up his own resources. Don't like it? Fork it! Works for any communication space. Infinitely.

So on the Internet, humans can go back to the natural form of organization called webs of trust. Without having to ever bash their heads in when they don't want to. The holy grail of a society.

Then came the businesses and non-digital-natives and they fucked everything up, by trying to force the Internet into their outdated systems, instead of integrating.
Suddenly we were supposed to have "laws" because they can't handle configuring a firewall or server. Suddenly sites were limited to physical regions. Suddenly you could not call somebody a "cum-guzzling uncle-fucker" anymore because he would be too insecure to just laugh and leave, but would whine and bitch and ... Suddenly services were centralized and comments were censored because some morons sued instead of just *forking*.

Eternal September was born.

I say we make a new Internet. With anons and webs of trust! Where the only laws are, that there are no laws, and no non-digital-natives.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject

[pegasustonans]

We get it, you don't have Facebook and feel the need to tell the world they don't need it either so that you can feel superior by being different.
I don't have cable TV, but I at least understand that some people feel that TV has value and thus subscribe to it so I'm not going to go around telling everyone that because I don't want TV they shouldn't want it either.

Clearly, people see value in communicating with friends/family in a casual environment. I understand that.

The issue for me is, to use the TV example, my TV doesn't compromise the privacy of my neighbors and acquaintances, Facebook does. I'm not on Facebook because the potential value there is outweighed by my privacy concerns with the service.

Unfortunately, my friends and family *are* on Facebook. This means, as family members share private photographs of me and talk about me on Facebook, my privacy is compromised even though I never agreed to it. This is the real issue here.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject

[symbolset]

It has to do with what people really care about. This is the basic primitive that most of the major players in tech just don't get. As humans we crave some things and are willing to pay inordinate prices to get them. Zuckerberg gets this. Jobs got this. Google gets this. Intel, AMD, Microsoft, IBM, Dell, HP, Acer, Asus, Toshiba, Fujitsu, LG, Sony and Lenovo - they just don't.

People don't - and never did - give a flying fuck about the widget. What they cared about was how the widget helped them do what they wanted and needed to do, how it enabled and empowered them. At first it was about business but as compute became ubiquitous it became about common folk. People want external validation. They want to be admired and accepted. They want to feel more connected to the people they care about. Facebook gives them this without fear of rejection because Facebook has no "dislike" button. iOS gives them this, as they can Facetime with their loved ones at any time. They will buy widgets to be telepresent with their loved ones when they must be away, relieving a primary tension of modern life.

Once the tech got sufficient to provide this somebody was going to figure this out. Proper respect goes to Steve Jobs for figuring it out first, and Andy Rubin for being swift with the FOSS solution that looks to rule the world. I'd praise Zuckerberg for vision here too but I just can't bring myself to do that. He solved the problem then exploited it in the worst possible way.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject

[Isaac Remuant]

Do you have a cellphone? Do you use smartphone apps? do you use google or other search engine? do you use an email service? Do you use an ISP? what software do you use? Do you monitor your outgoing connections? Do you wear hoodies in front of cameras when you enter commercial buildings?

All these things affect your privacy. You're arbitrarily deciding FB is not worth that "invasion" but trying to convince others that FB should objectively be excluded and is somehow radically different than all these other examples where you give up privacy is disingenuous.

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject

[JasterBobaMereel]

Do your family and friends ever talk to their friends about you? If so then your privacy is compromised without your participation ... shall we ban conversation?

Re:An Extremely Decent video on the subject

[jareth-0205]

You're right. "I don't have Facebook" has taken over from the "I don't even have a TV" as the cry of the superior elitist.

Re:You know who else had things ruined?

[crutchy]

Also, pity about the thousands of innocent victims (including women and children) killed by US drones in Pakistan. Oh but they aren't US citizens so that doesn't count, right?

Re:Ok

[Ash-Fox]

Relax. It will go away soon. Like, MySpace, or any other fad in the past...

Then why is MySpace still around and why do I still see MySpace IDs being referenced in stuff like newly designed restaurant menus?

Re:Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

It's one of those retro fads, like those new '50's style diners.

Re:Ok

[ArcadeMan]

Because some businesses don't want to lose even 1% of potential customers. That's why you see Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. everywhere.

I just wish companies would put up pages for their own products on their own website instead of telling us to learn more at "facebook.com/product/".

Re:Time for new Facebook competitor?

[Frosty Piss]

Facebook's changes are pissing off its users....the same people who put them in the dominant position it is in now.

I don't believe this is so.

I think Facebook is pissing of Techies and the Uber Cool but that the "average" Facebook user is still quite happy.

Maybe some of these Super Cool Proto Users should take another look at Google+ which as evolved into something very similar to the "original" Facebook. Of course you will not be able to validate your sad life with 100's of "friends" whom you really don't know and have never met in person...

Not many people inhabit Google+ yet but if they don't kill it off like so many of their "projects", it will be the natural transition when Facebook becomes passe by the normal non-Uber Cool Proto Users.

Re:Comments are ordered backwards, even on /.

[isorox]

http://emphatious.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/warning-this-website-is-upside-down/

Your link states
The philosophy of a design should be to minimize the amount of time a user has to learn the interface and try to be as similar as possible to other interfaces the user has used previously to avoid getting mixed up from time to time.

OK, don't do anything new, copy other interfaces. Great

It then goes on to say:

Almost all websites are like this.

So what it's saying in the second statement is that the standard - new items first - is ubiquitous. The first statement it states this is good. I fail to see the problem.

If you like that....

[symbolset]

Then you must watch the Extremely Decent ad for The First Honest Cable Company

Re:You know who else had things ruined?

[Smauler]

Do you want us to police the world or not?

Not. Please.

Seriously, do you and other people in the US really think they're the world's police, the last bastion for freedom, etc? Is this a common mentality?

"At least for one writer"

[Brucelet]

Well I'm glad Slashdot headlines are at least becoming honest about the substance-free stories we've been seeing lately.

Re:Ok

[T-Bone-T]

Why make your own website when you can use a free page on Facebook? You don't have to hire a designer or any other internet related things and by default you get an interface that almost every customer is familiar with.

Re:Comments are ordered backwards, even on /.

[Isaac Remuant]

So you've probably hate The Guardian's Live Blogging.

It's not about reviewing EVERYTHING, it's about the latest. If you're really interested, you can scroll down and move up.

I don't really see the average user struggling with this.

Re:You know who else had things ruined?

[crutchy]

the US harbors terrorists too (not even counting those that work for the US government)... you gunna advocate blowing up innocent US women and children between drones and terrorists in the US?

Re:Time for new Facebook competitor?

[jandrese]

It's actually pretty hard to switch away from a social media site that all of your friends are using. Google+ showed us just how hard with it's sausagefest userbase and extremely high percentage of eagerly created but completely inactive accounts.