Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Users Are Sharing Less and It's a Big Problem (fortune.com)

Reader Colin Castro writes: Facebook is starting to see decline in original posts and people sharing their thoughts. "Facebook's decline in personal updates reflects a common growing pain for online communities. What starts out as a special and intimate place to share things grows into a big, impersonal, and professional platform ." The author points out one of the reasons why: "They know that, unlike in Facebook's earlier days, their status updates can now be seen by distant relatives, high school classmates, and co-workers -- so they don't share anything too personal."

326 comments

  1. They should pay me if they want original content. by mmiscool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IF they want my original content I should be paid. They are making money off of my hard work taking that stupid picture.

  2. Derp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People realized sharing everything about themselves to everyone they vaguely know isn't generally the best social strategy? No way.

    1. Re:Derp by kheldan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not just that. People realize that so-called 'social media' is anything but, when it comes right down to it. Also, it's trendy as hell. Once it was AOL. Then it was Livejournal and Myspace. Right now it's Facebook. What we're seeing, however, is the Beginning of the End for Facebook (or at least I hope it is). A year from now, the next trendy 'social media' thing will emerge, and all the social-media sheep and attention whores will start migrating towards that, dragging their 'friends' (with a small 'f') with them. Hope for Zuckerbergs' sake he's invested all his millions into something conservative and sound, he's going to need that to live on when Facebook really does become Failbook and is worth nothing, gets sold off to some eastern europeans for a song.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    2. Re:Derp by genner · · Score: 1

      Not just that. People realize that so-called 'social media' is anything but, when it comes right down to it. Also, it's trendy as hell. Once it was AOL. Then it was Livejournal and Myspace. Right now it's Facebook. What we're seeing, however, is the Beginning of the End for Facebook (or at least I hope it is). A year from now, the next trendy 'social media' thing will emerge, and all the social-media sheep and attention whores will start migrating towards that, dragging their 'friends' (with a small 'f') with them. Hope for Zuckerbergs' sake he's invested all his millions into something conservative and sound, he's going to need that to live on when Facebook really does become Failbook and is worth nothing, gets sold off to some eastern europeans for a song.

      Google+ is the future.......maybe not.

  3. It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see" by kick6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the result of the left-liberals financial crusade for PC. Free speech has been stifled because your "free" speech might just cost you your income/career if you don't toe the line.

  4. Facebook is 99.99% reposts for me by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Informative

    I see very little content that's actually from the people I follow. 99% of what I see is just stuff reshared from other places. I hardly ever use Facebook anymore because most of that reshared content doesn't interest me anyway.

    1. Re:Facebook is 99.99% reposts for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! I soooooooooooooooo want Facebook to die.

    2. Re:Facebook is 99.99% reposts for me by The-Ixian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      FB has its place. It is extremely good at getting your message out to everyone you care about.

      I rarely post anything on FB anymore, but I do keep it around and monitor it from time-to-time. I also keep Trillian signed in to FB messenger.

      It keeps me vaguely in the loop of events and makes me available for my friends and family to contact me. But I keep my privacy options up-to-date and don't use FB as authentication for anything else. Nor do I use many FB apps or games.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    3. Re:Facebook is 99.99% reposts for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And most of those are scams, stupid inspirational quotes, or dumb ass articles

    4. Re:Facebook is 99.99% reposts for me by avandesande · · Score: 1

      "FB has its place. It is extremely good at getting your message out to everyone you care about."

      Except this isn't true any more.... with all the junk that gets posted and people not posting/reading as often it is losing this advantage.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:Facebook is 99.99% reposts for me by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      FB has its place. It is extremely good at getting your message out to everyone you care about.

      Not really, much of what people post as messages scroll by much too quickly even if FB ever even decides to show me their post. FB is pretty much good for collecting people as contacts so you can message them, scheduling events and inviting people to them, organizing and connecting small groups on a page, and wasting time. Mostly that last one.

  5. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, unfortunately, as something gets so wide spread as facebook and twitter, it can all come back to haunt you. There's no way to prevent bosses or coworkers from seeing anything unless you make everything private and never friend people you work with. But that doesn't really matter either, because things can get shared and reposted.

    I've blocked so many pages now it's ridiculous. I've somewhat outgrown Social media, and sharing every thought with people I barely knew. It was neat when it was new, but now it's tedious and irritating. Oh, and internet arguments! When opinion turns to fact, that's when the blocking button gets a workout.

    1. Re: Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can create friend lists to control views but it's far too tedious and complex to manage for most. I've considered doing it several times, but there's very little I enjoy sharing outside my real physical friend circle to begin with.

    2. Re: Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a few lists to post things to just family, or just my closest friends. But I decided to not post much at all. I use it for work mostly, posting interesting things on my business page instead of my personal profile.

  6. Google+ by doconnor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google+ created circles to allow you to control who you share things with, which would prevent this problem.

    1. Re:Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if Google didn't try to shove + down people's throats, they might not have instantly loathed it.

    2. Re:Google+ by gsslay · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And why didn't that take off? Because it was too complicated. You had to set up the circles and maintain them. Every time you posted you needed to spend time thinking about which circle got to see it, and making sure you didn't make an embarrassing error by sharing with the wrong people. No one could be bothered with that.

      People needed it to be as easy as chatting in the staff room, or at a social gathering, by just glancing around the room to see who is in earshot. It wasn't.

    3. Re:Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Facebook has equivalent sharing capabilities. Anyone who complains about people too far out from their friends being able to see their posts is either ignorant or just lazy.

    4. Re:Google+ by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, that was a huge miss. Which is weird because they usually put out all these beta products to sink or swim on their relative merits, but for Google+ they absolutely rammed it down your throat. Perhaps they thought they were under-supporting their products and just went a little too far in the opposite direction that time.

    5. Re:Google+ by enosys · · Score: 2

      On Facebook you can create lists of people, and then share with that list. You can also view posts from the list. It is similar to circles.

    6. Re:Google+ by dcollins · · Score: 1

      Pro tip: One-to-one and one-to-many are categorically different relations.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    7. Re: Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or failbook reset the permissions on the again, and again, and again....

    8. Re:Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      >And why didn't that take off? Because it was too complicated.

      Nah. Two reasons

      1) FB already existed. Why change? None of your friends use G+ after all. Just one more annoying PoS to deal with.

      2) The overly aggressive, intrusive, and *deceptive* way Google went about signing people up for it. It's as bad as Windows 10 installs. You go to YouTube and get presented a message asking you what name you want to use. If you select either option, it signs you up for Google+! If you then disable that, well fuck you, we'll just delete your YT channel too.

      #1 is why people with FB didn't care and #2 is why people here cared.

    9. Re:Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it was Diaspora. But yeah, Google+ too it too.

    10. Re:Google+ by jeremyp · · Score: 2

      Google+ didn't take off because everybody was already on Facebook. That's the one and only reason for its failure.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    11. Re:Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can still fix things up, if they seize this moment and work carefully.

    12. Re:Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did they ram it down our throats? I really never got that impression.

    13. Re:Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, we'll ask you again later.

    14. Re:Google+ by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Actually you're both right.
      Your points are correct, but the management of G+ was something most people didn't want to F with.
      For people who like organizing things, the G+ method was awesome and a good idea.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    15. Re:Google+ by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      I doubt that many people were turned off from G+. Had they not pushed it, I imagine there would be even fewer people.

    16. Re:Google+ by secretsquirel · · Score: 1

      well, throats and any and all other orifices they could find. unfortunate really. if you didn't get that impression then i'm not even sure what to tell you, it was pretty ridiculous.

    17. Re:Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curiously, my Google Plus feed is so much more richer and has much more "new content" (people sharing their thoughts, talking about things, etc) than my facebook feed. And I think part of that is exactly because you have that control.

    18. Re:Google+ by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      No I think they thought facebook was becoming an alternative walled WWW that they were not a part of and could not participate in easily. So they got reactionary about it.

      Google pulled the WWW together and made it really possible to find stuff. They monetized that, and they get their rent as a result in terms of being in the prime position to get ad revenue but I also think they made the WWW better for all (well not for Yahoo and their direct competitors in the ad space).

      Facebook on the other hand has always been a model of lockup any content you can and try to ensnare users in your own walled garden. They have added nothing to usefulness of the WWW outside their own site, and in a lot ways harmed it by sucking up all the oxygen.

         

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    19. Re:Google+ by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Google+ didn't take off because everybody was already on Facebook. That's the one and only reason for its failure.

      Not quite. It went to market feature poor. There were several past big FB hate events, and Google+ happened to give invites to my group of friends all around that time and we all joined and were using it for a day or two. The big killer was there was no feature at that point to create and organize events and have them be linked to our Google calendars. Since that was the main use for FB besides wasting time, we all ended up going back almost immediately.

    20. Re:Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why didn't that take off? Because it was too complicated. You had to set up the circles and maintain them. Every time you posted you needed to spend time thinking about which circle got to see it, and making sure you didn't make an embarrassing error by sharing with the wrong people. No one could be bothered with that.

      This is already how my mind works socially. If I am speaking with my grandmother, I talk about a particular set of topics and in a particular way. If I am speaking to my close friend, these are both different. If I speak to a colleague, different again. If I am in mixed company (i.e., "mixed circles"), I default to the topics which are safe across the broad. Thus, the concept was quite intuitive for me.

    21. Re:Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.

  7. Google "Circles" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Google had it right with the "circles" idea. There are lots of times I'd like to post something to a narrower group, but you can't in Facebook.

    1. Re:Google "Circles" by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      I agree. Facebook has the ability to create and manage groups, but it's always been a pain to maintain. The metaphor and controls Google+ created make so much more sense. The problem that Google+ has always faced is that they started too late.....Facebook already had all of the people, and it was really hard to convince people to leave it because "that's where all of my friends already are"

    2. Re: Google "Circles" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its somewhat ironic that Google had Orkut before Facebook (1-2 weeks) and MySpace..yet Google+ is zombie land and MySpace in a vegetable state with no chance of recovery.

    3. Re:Google "Circles" by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Once it's posted on the internet, no matter what they tell you, you no longer have full control over it. Only a sucker believes otherwise.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Google "Circles" by rsborg · · Score: 1

      Once it's posted on the internet, no matter what they tell you, you no longer have full control over it. Only a sucker believes otherwise.

      This is the truth that has resulted in the whole "social media" downturn.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  8. Really? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 0

    What you say "big problem"...? Compared to what?

    Though I'm reluctant to mock this, because I don't want to be on the same side as the gleeful posters that are desperate to tell us how superior they are in not using Facebook. "I'm not on Facebook" has become the new "I don't even have a TV"

    1. Re:Really? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

      Seriously, what is wrong with ether?

    2. Re:Really? by gsslay · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's a big problem for Facebook because the more impersonal the posts become, the less people are going to bother visiting to read them. There goes their advertising revenue.

      It's a definite trend. The majority of stuff I now see on my time line now is re-shares of crappy viral content. Fewer and fewer friends put anything about themselves or their day, the kind of stuff I might actually care or be interested in. And I understand that. 99% of what little I put is trivial or generic observations. Almost never anything personal.

    3. Re:Really? by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      It's a "Big Problem" to people who read Fortune Magazine. If business don't know everything about you, it's harder to exploit you deliver you the very best in personalized targeted premium content!

    4. Re:Really? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      The volatility?

    5. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about I have NEVER been on failbook because I saw through the BS before their IPO.

      It is not just hipsters that avoid facebook.

    6. Re:Really? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      ? What do you mean? I don't have facebook or a tv and both objectively and subjectively am doing well in life and don't feel I'm missing anything, have a lot more free time to read and study and would save over $1200/year over what I would spend on cable. For comparison, that's a vacation on the other side of the US, even a trip to Europe or to double the insulation in my house.

    7. Re:Really? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I have a fiend who used to read fortune magazine in grade school and come to school in a tie and dress shirt every day. He was really poor and didn't even speak English. All the kids made fun of him, but is worth over 10M today.

    8. Re:Really? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      Whoosh. See (closely) your previous comment.

    9. Re:Really? by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Nicely...

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    10. Re:Really? by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      That kid's name? Albert Einstein.

    11. Re:Really? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      No I realize that and only respond to comment from people about others w/o tvs I don't actively going around telling people this. I'm honestly curious about what is wrong with not owning a television (other than I cannot afford it).

    12. Re:Really? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      Nothing. OP was pointing out a tendency for some of those that have eschewed television to become arrogant regarding their decision. People like this will not hesitate to interject this into a conversation, and can be quite condescending about it.

    13. Re:Really? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      I noticed this starting about 2 years ago, I don't know what has taken Facebook so long. But I always thought it was a result of the way Facebook is filtering the newsfeed, and possible kickbacks from "viral" spam sites. Now, very few of my friends are posting anything original, and when they do, it seldom makes it into my feed. These days I check Facebook about once a week, selecting "I want to see less of things like this" for most of the posts in a fruitless attempt to make my feed more relevant.

  9. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That is interesting. It would be worth making a study of just how much Zuckerburg's own PC thought police don't share anything that might offend someone policies are contributing.

    The counter point would be twitter, which up until very recently, and now with limited success has not really tied to police content other than strait up porn. Arguably twitter is mostly a cesspool of people flaming each other for this an that and advertisements.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  10. Not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are sharing less personal information to a megasite that mines said information for advertisers? I don't see a problem there.

  11. Narcissism is why people stop posting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    People realize they are becoming narcissistic. So they stop posting.

    Then the people that are super narcissistic keep posting. And those that stopped get sick of the daily posts telling everyone what they ate for lunch.

    And everyone leaves the site that has become a cluttered mess of posts no one cares about and advertisements.

  12. Re: It's more than just "I don't want grammy to se by joerdie · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow. Your Jimmies are really rustled on this topic. Tell us more about your political philosophies!

  13. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The thing is, people are posting less and less even of pictures. My feed is all idiotic "shares". This is why I use FB less and less with every passing month.

    I wish there was a way to block ALL shares, and ONLY see original content created by someone I know. Of course, that doesn't help Zuckerberg's marketing analytics or Facebook's "you are the product" business model.

  14. Corportate Snoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen, I like drawing sexy cartoons in my spare time, which is just fine for posting to tumblr, twitter or whatever but not Facebook. Last several years of interviews / work have shown the need to have multiple social media profiles; ones showing what kind of a shiny happy person you are and the ones you actually use

    Never. Facebook.

    1. Re:Corportate Snoops by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Odd. I get why no one would want to go to Tumblr unless they had to, but Twitter is usually considered part of the whole social media A-team. What better place to find salacious things to hate you for than abbreviated half-thoughts with perhaps a picture attached? Is it really not actually looked at by HR teams, or is it perhaps a little harder to link an actual individual to a Twitter account unless it is provided?

    2. Re:Corportate Snoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook connects dots and suggests your "anonymous" account to people you know with alarming accuracy. Twitter does this as well but it is far clumsier at it (at least for now)

    3. Re:Corportate Snoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, you can have a twitter account without using your real name. How would HR connect it to you, unless it's the NSA's HR?

  15. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by parkinglot777 · · Score: 2

    Please stop labeling or inserting political bias into any discussion. A discussion should NOT BE pulled to involve politic.

    I actually think why should people post personal things on the public Internet anyway? If they want anyone to see their personal thought, then accept consequences because it is no longer "personal" but rather becomes public. Also, why do they think that Facebook is that PERSONAL in the first place?

  16. Data harvesting by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...What starts out as a special and intimate place to share things grows into a big, impersonal, and professional platform ."...

    The problem is that facebook participants slowly began to realize that anything and everything they post is harvested by the advertisers to build a profile of you.

    1. Re:Data harvesting by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      At some point, perhaps users learned how to update their privacy settings too.

      So maybe less content is publicly visible.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:Data harvesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that facebook participants slowly began to realize that anything and everything they post is harvested by the advertisers to build a profile of you.

      I'd like to believe that, but the sad truth is that 99.99% of the users don't care their data is being harvested, so long as that data is not used against them.
      Most employers now check Facebook, sometimes resulting in people getting fired, so it's more probable people are more careful because of that.

    3. Re:Data harvesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it's more a symptom of what happened with all its predecessor technology. Is there really any advantage to Facebook over a blog, other than you push it out to people? People got bored with vanity websites, then blogs, then videos, now apparently Facebook- the only exceptions to that progression are truly remarkable content creators, not your friends, family, and neighbors and certainly not yourself.

      On the other hand, I still can't get my mother-in-law to use the online gallery of the pictures of her grandchildren. It's as if the photos don't exist until my wife posts them to FB.

    4. Re:Data harvesting by avandesande · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are overthinking it. People are just bored with facebook and aren't interested in it any more.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:Data harvesting by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      And by the government. Though maybe Uncle Sam is who they meant by "distant relatives" in the summary...

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    6. Re:Data harvesting by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      You are overthinking it....

      If you call asking my friends why they have stopped posting on facebook as much as they used to, and they tell me it was the data harvesting, then, yes, I was over thinking it.

      .
      I agree boredom may play a part, but the main reason I hear is the data harvesting. It could be because my friends are more technical than most, though.

    7. Re: Data harvesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You think facebook isn't harvesting "private" data as well. Oh, to be 13 again.

    8. Re:Data harvesting by I4ko · · Score: 1

      Wondering why nobody upvoted you.

    9. Re:Data harvesting by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Actually most people are just getting bored with it.
      Only the well informed and conscientious use the data harvesting reason.
      They are the minority.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  17. Opportunity Knocking by sycodon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Make a new Facebook without all the Asshat, "features".

    Design it for close knit groups only...Family, a few friends. All content hidden by default, invitations only to grant access (not even solicitations to be granted access), etc.

    The premise of an on-line place to share things with people you want to share them with was a good idea. But like all internet things, Good Ideas are quickly perverted into blatant, clumsy, and in your face money grabs.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Opportunity Knocking by vux984 · · Score: 4, Informative

      blatant, clumsy, and in your face money grabs.

      Facebook didn't become that, it started out that way. It was NEVER a good idea.

    2. Re:Opportunity Knocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So like G+? ...

    3. Re:Opportunity Knocking by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Things that are intimate can be difficult to finance over time. Perhaps more to the point, they're that much harder to get suddenly and obscenely rich off of. So unless you can find someone willing to run a first rate company who isn't going to want to get rich off of it when it becomes popular and they see dollar signs, you're going to always see this sort of things happen. Google, for instance, is still a big, popular company that is doing lots of things, but "Don't be evil" is firmly in the past with them, and it always was destined to be when they made their IPO.

    4. Re:Opportunity Knocking by Verdatum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All that mattered to people was that it was better than MySpace.

    5. Re:Opportunity Knocking by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Insightful

      blatant, clumsy, and in your face money grabs.

      Facebook didn't become that, it started out that way. It was NEVER a good idea.

      Indeed. Zuckerberg just stole a dumb idea, claimed it as his own, made a fortune from this stolen idea and now everyone else is starting to realise what a dumb idea it was in the first place. Hopefully everyone will think it was actually Zuckerbergs dumb idea in the first place.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    6. Re:Opportunity Knocking by I4ko · · Score: 1

      Between 2007 and mid 2008 facebook wasn't like that. it was a close system for alumns, and there wasn't a ton of apps. Around that time they became greedy (err... read API happy) and a ton of junk went in there all trying to steal personality (err... read deep mine personal data, habits and so on).

    7. Re:Opportunity Knocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an awfully big strawman you built yourself there, sonny.

    8. Re: Opportunity Knocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA. It says LESS people are posting and that is about it. I think you lost the plot.

    9. Re:Opportunity Knocking by vux984 · · Score: 1

      it was a close system for alumns

      Which Zuckerberg uploaded himself without permission to get started. Even it's 'origin story' is just a tale of what a piece of shit Zuckerberg is.

    10. Re:Opportunity Knocking by cccc828 · · Score: 1

      That is essentially what slack (https://slack.com) is offering. They market it for business, but it also works fine for groups of friends (even non-technical ones).

    11. Re:Opportunity Knocking by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2

      Ah, Yes, Google+ ! Every feature you could dream of or desire, except other users you know...

    12. Re:Opportunity Knocking by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      How are you going to pay for the servers?

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    13. Re:Opportunity Knocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make a new Facebook without all the Asshat, "features".

      Design it for close knit groups only...Family, a few friends. All content hidden by default, invitations only to grant access (not even solicitations to be granted access), etc.

      Your problems are over: Google+ circles.

    14. Re:Opportunity Knocking by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      We already have something like that, and it's completely decentralized too so you're not reliant on one big corporation to run it. It's called "Diaspora".

      Of course, it'll never go anywhere because it isn't being run by some giant for-profit corporation whose interests don't align with the users', because regular people aren't smart enough to understand this and are too lazy to put in the little bit of work needed to use it.

    15. Re:Opportunity Knocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean with circles and stuff? Google tried that and it failed.

    16. Re:Opportunity Knocking by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Except that it's run by Google, so you're guaranteed that they're going to data-mine the hell out of it and use it to advertise to you in some creepy way.

      Honestly, trusting any of these corporations to protect your privacy is sheer lunacy.

    17. Re:Opportunity Knocking by bmo · · Score: 2

      Design it for close knit groups only...Family, a few friends. All content hidden by default, invitations only to grant access (not even solicitations to be granted access), etc.

      I miss dialup BBSes too.

      --
      BMO

    18. Re:Opportunity Knocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's called "Slack".

    19. Re:Opportunity Knocking by ewhac · · Score: 1

      All that mattered to people was that it was better than MySpace.

      And Friendster.com. And Tribe.net. And Orkut.com. And Livejournal.com...

    20. Re:Opportunity Knocking by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      The premise of an on-line place to share things with people you want to share them with was a good idea.

      Sounds nice but its actually a terrible idea. Its not something people will ever see enough value in to pay for, even in a world before facebook if you had asked people to subscribe they'd have said but I can e-mail my friends for free. Now with all the various platforms for slapping some content up on with more or fewer controls and distribution models the argument anyone should pay will be impossible to make.

      Its a fairly expensive proposition to host because all those pictures and videos and the like will need an enormous amount of storage and bandwidth. So it will cost big bucks.

      Finally there isn't a way to monetize a private bulletin board like that outside of a subscription model. The idea is as Mr.Trump would say "a looser"

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    21. Re:Opportunity Knocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that mattered to people (during the Myspace fall) was the illusion of exclusivity. Everyone couldn't get it and because of that you were special.

    22. Re:Opportunity Knocking by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      Sure but you need a way to pay for it. And it appears most people aren't willing to pay for such a service. There-in lies the problem.

    23. Re:Opportunity Knocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Make a new Facebook without all the Asshat, "features".
      > Design it for close knit groups only...

      perhaps they could call it Google Groups.

    24. Re:Opportunity Knocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The beginning of Facebook was college only. It went downhill when they opened it up to high schools and general public.

    25. Re:Opportunity Knocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that mattered to people was that it was better than MySpace.

      And....how 'bout now?

    26. Re:Opportunity Knocking by ark1 · · Score: 2

      Chat bots will replace the need for real users!

    27. Re:Opportunity Knocking by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      There was a time when you could make it impossible for anyone to send you a 'friend' request. Thereby shutting off the network after having added all the people you cared about connecting with. At some point they changed the permission level to a minimum of 'friends of friends' so that when you add one school classmate, you'll open yourself to friend requests from everyone else that s/he was friends with.

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
  18. No, it's not a bad thing. it's common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't Betteridge's law of headlines meant to apply only to questions?

  19. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right, it's only a left-liberal problem. There's no chance someone admitting they are an atheist on social media might get axed by their evangelical boss because of some sudden reason. The right-conservatives would never use it in such a fashion. Right...

    It's a privacy problem. Not a left or right prhttps://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/04/08/1515249/facebook-users-are-sharing-less-and-its-a-big-problem#oblem.

  20. damn by TimMD909 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wish I had a Facebook account to share this post...

  21. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know the context for your experience with this.

    But I don't think it's an issue of political correctness. Someone spouts idiocy, and I would have to take that into consideration for their employment.

  22. Loving it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd be delighted to watch a total collapse of social media and the spying economy in general, left high and dry by the same users they built their empires on. Let's keep that mindset rolling, social media users.

  23. Why bother when nobody sees it by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The masterful (/s) algorithm for post visibility is skewed against personal updates. Based on the shit that's on my feed it's the stupid-ass memes that people post which seem to get play, and personal updates show up rarely, or several hours/days late. They should be running all those images through TinEye and if there's a hit, that post gets pushed to the background. If they constantly reward worthless content, they're going to get more and more of it. I wish there was a manual +/- on your friends so that if, by chance, you intentionally (or unintentionally) clicked on one story posted by that obscure guy you met at some conference, you wouldn't automatically be bombarded with his next 100 useless memes and radical political posts.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Why bother when nobody sees it by Frederic54 · · Score: 1

      Right, the FB "wall" is mainly garbage now, what I see more and more is people creating Facebook groups, for family, friends, hobbies, etc and in this one there is no crap, only what users are posting.
      I am not talking about "friends group" alà google circle that are hard to manage in FB, but "interest group".

      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:Why bother when nobody sees it by c · · Score: 2

      Based on the shit that's on my feed it's the stupid-ass memes that people post which seem to get play, and personal updates show up rarely, or several hours/days late.

      I'm afraid that you have to curate manually if you want to filter out the shit. Every post has a little dropdown menu which usually has a "Hide all from..." option. As a general rule, anything with "meme", "viral", "funny", "adult", or especially anything that looks like a TV or radio call sign should be blocked as you encounter it. My feed these days is largely personal posts from friends or business pages I intentionally follow.

      Obviously it would be better if Facebook could figure it out on its own and suppress most of that stuff, but "making Facebook more usable" doesn't seem to be a high priority for them...

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    3. Re:Why bother when nobody sees it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Click on obscure persons name and then unfollow them. Voila. You will not see any of their pedantic BS again, but can still communicate if desired.

      I pretty much unfollow everyone who is deemed an annoyance.

    4. Re:Why bother when nobody sees it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's a constant cat and mouse game. As soon as you get all that crap off your feed, all the marketing companies switch to different accounts that you have to play whack a mole again with.

    5. Re:Why bother when nobody sees it by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they aren't always obscure. Even people I'd like to get updates from - just not have them as half of my freaking feed. And the everything or nothing switch is not really useful.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  24. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You are misinterpreting 'Free Speech'. It simply means you are free to say what you like and the government won't try to stop you. It doesn't mean that you are free from the consequences of what you say. People have an equal right to be offended by your speech, and to dish out some retribution. For example, if your employer doesn't like some racist comments you make, then they can fire you. It's not really a left-liberal thing - more like the right-wing not practicing what they preach and taking responsibility for their actions. Don't want ridiculed or worse? Then, you're free to shut the fuck up.

  25. I don't think so. by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The author is... more than a little off base. To take the services I'm aware of; Flickr didn't crumble because it reached the mainstream, because it never really reached the mainstream. Flickr* crumbled because of a number of ill advised changes to the UI at the same time Facebook and a number of other photo sharing services were on the rise. In the same way, LiveJournal was quite healthy, even in the mainstream, but the rise of Facebook combined with a number of ill advised changes, and numerous outages due to DDOS attacks pushed people away. Orkut never was mainstream.

    He also misses one huge change to Facebook itself - the shift to mobile devices. As slashdotters have long noted, it's hard to produce original content, even text, on tablets, phablets, and phones.

    * Yes, Flickr could be considered a social media site even though it's ostensibly a photosharing service. It had extensive groups (forums) dedicated to almost every topic under the sun. People used the text blocks (intended for descriptions) accompanying the photographs for blogging. Etc... etc...

    1. Re:I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is why Snapchat and Instagram have been on the rise. They're social networks designed around the limitations of smart phones.

    2. Re:I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flickr crumbled? It still seems to be an active thing, with active people, to me. What are the stats on user posting, use, etc. that have changed?

  26. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by WarJolt · · Score: 4, Informative

    If they can't be trusted with sharing then unfriendly them.

  27. Can I be optimistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has Facebook finally taught the world about the dangers inherent in a permanently-accessible record of everything you've ever done, liked, or said?

  28. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's not just the PC-left. The PC-right does the same thing. Just try coming out against the military, and see what happens.

  29. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a right-conservative leaning person, I'd have to disagree. I just don't see this as a political issue, left or right.

    This is simply people realizing what Facebook is about and what the implications of sharing all the intimate details of your life really means. It means your boss can see what you do in your spare time and who you hang out with. It means people you don't really want to associate you can track your every move. It means you lose your privacy in unexpected and unwelcome ways. It means your kids get into arguments with you because you're posting details of their lives without their consent.

    In other words, people are simply learning about the downsides of Facebook. And it's about fucking time.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  30. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

    Political Correctness: Invented by conservatives, perfected by liberals.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  31. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. The day Brendan Eich was blacklisted was the turning point.

  32. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting. I'm pretty conservative in most ways, but I'm an atheist. As is usually the case, you're both partially correct.

    The real problem is that it is so difficult to control who will see your posts. My conservative Mom, my liberal boss, my friends from high school I barely remember, people I might hit up for a job (especially those I used to work with that moved on to better jobs). What is safe to post that all those people will see? Not much, which I why I don't post much.

  33. Because no one is interested by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

    Facebook users are just starting to realise that no one is actually interested in their 'updates' about what they had for breakfast or reading their 'stream of consciousness'.

    Its just starting to dawn on them that this is utterly boring and useless.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    1. Re:Because no one is interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook users are just starting to realise that no one is actually interested in their 'updates' about what they had for breakfast or reading their 'stream of consciousness'.

      Its just starting to dawn on them that this is utterly boring and useless.

      I have a feeling that people have just become bored and/or concerned about privacy. Don't worry, a whole new generation of young people are mindlessly scrolling through snapchat feeds and "liking" (or whatever it's called now) other peoples' short videos... for hours on end. Welcome to the future.

  34. Noise in Facebook feed by Faizdog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is no simple factor that can explain this; I'm sure it's a confluence of a variety or reasons.

    One that I've noticed is that my feed is just noisier now with Ads, other "of interest" stories that FB feels like shoving in there. The nice friends and family updates I want to see are still there, but I have to scroll through a lot of noise to see them.

    Eventually I get tired of scrolling and stop. Then I visit less often, then I post less often, and the cycle perpetuates itself.

    FB made changes to their feed sometime back, a year or two ago, and it's definitely affected things.

    And then there are all the other issues people mention. Many of the people and their updates which prompted me to join FB are now on WhatsApp and other platforms.

    --
    -"Those who fought today will die tommorow."-
    1. Re:Noise in Facebook feed by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      One of my issues is that AFAICT without digging, I can't just see the newest crap first. FB shows what it thinks I want to see, which I usually don't. So, I seldom bother with it.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:Noise in Facebook feed by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      "One that I've noticed is that my feed is just noisier now with Ads, other "of interest" stories that FB feels like shoving in there. The nice friends and family updates I want to see are still there, but I have to scroll through a lot of noise to see them."

      This exactly. It's too much work hiding the junk to get to what I used to see immediately. I'll upload some pictures occasionally, and do a random Like if i see something front and center, but I don't have the energy to wade through the junk anymore. I've definitely noticed not just a drop in the amount of posts by most people on my friends list, but the time between posts has increased.

    3. Re:Noise in Facebook feed by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      Arrow next to news feed, and select "Most Recent".

      It will keep getting reset back to "Top Stories" for some reason, that is mostly shares of crappy memes or SJW posts.

  35. Other reasons FB is declining by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

    I'm using it far less because among other things, I find myself pushing back against FB's relentless drive to monetize me by trying to keep me looking at it for hours. I dislike the way they have made it difficult to customize the interface - because I can't be monetized if I have control. And something I can't blame FB for... Every other post is political. I am in agreement with my friends politically for the most part, but darn it I don't want politics mixing so much with my recreation.

    --
    Don't step on the baby.
    1. Re:Other reasons FB is declining by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      And something I can't blame FB for... Every other post is political

      Of course you can and should blame FB for that. You have however many friends. You see maybe 10% of what they post (if that). FB chooses to show you a political thing (that they know people will react to) over a post about something your friend did (which is a giant question mark).

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Other reasons FB is declining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am in agreement with my friends politically for the most part...

      Seriously? How boring. You need to get some new friends. (Note: In addition to your current friends.)

  36. too much crap by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Too much POLITICAL crap. I post a lot of photos to family/friends, instead of emailing it. That's about the extent of my FB activity. Otherwise, I just CALL the person. People posting about what they dreamed about, selfies, cat videos, what they had for dinner doesn't interest me.

  37. "Big problem" by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Oh yes, Facebook users are not sharing enough of their petty social drama and that's a "big problem", (for very small values of 'problem').

    Never mind all the wars and starvation and the Panama Papers and other shit going on in the world, pay attention because Facebook users aren't sharing enough! OMG whatever will we do???

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:"Big problem" by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Think of the shareholders... (sniff)

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    2. Re:"Big problem" by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm just getting old, but I reached a point in my life 2 or 3 years ago where I no longer felt a need to tell people what an interesting person I am, or how interesting my life is. I don't need FB (etc.) to validate myself, nor do I feel any desire for the whole world to know that I'm currently in $country having $food for $meal. Thus I quit posting and effectively abandoned the account.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:"Big problem" by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm just getting old, but I reached a point in my life 2 or 3 years ago where I no longer felt a need to tell people what an interesting person I am, or how interesting my life is. I don't need FB (etc.) to validate myself, nor do I feel any desire for the whole world to know that I'm currently in $country having $food for $meal.

      I must have gotten old at a young age, because I never, ever felt like telling thousands of strangers (or even friends) the minutiae of my life. As if anyone would give a damn what I had for breakfast or what brand of toilet paper I use.

      Facebook is the leading cause of narcissism as near as I can tell. It's an endless stream of self-absorbed braggarts spewing their shitformation that no one really cares about, but that they feel compelled to keep up with and respond to. Is it the fear of missing out, or fear of appearing ordinary?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    4. Re:"Big problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truth is you're a failure in what you've done so you have nothing to speak of about let alone others speaking about you or anything you've done. Yours is the cry of the loser "ne'er-do-well".

  38. Opportunity Knocking by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    It's all about SHARING your life, so FB can push more crap to you. It amazes me, people don't want quadcopters flying over their yards, street cameras watching them, but have no problem with sharing all their lives on their cell phones, twitter, FB, instagram and the like. It would probably boggle the mind, the number of idiotic selfies with their butts stuck out, kips blown up that are out there.

  39. Make Privacy Prominent by omnichad · · Score: 2

    If they just made the privacy settings more prominent when creating a post, it will be easier to designate a post's visibility to different groups (and creating those groups).

    They tried so hard to hide privacy settings, and this is the result.

    1. Re:Make Privacy Prominent by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      If they just made the privacy settings more prominent when creating a post, it will be easier to designate a post's visibility to different groups (and creating those groups).

      What are you talking about? The privacy controls are literally right next to the "Post" button on Facebook, unless you're using the mobile client, then they're right next to your name. In either case they're pretty freaking prominent and you can use them to have a pretty fine-grained control over who sees what you post.

      Of course, I doubt most people bother with that control. I have it set to "friends only" and just leave it at that. If I don't want some subset of people to see something on Facebook, I just don't post it at all, and I expect most people are similar. People know that just because they blocked someone from seeing a post directly doesn't mean someone else can't show it to them.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    2. Re:Make Privacy Prominent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creating groups is too damn hard as well. I only post baby pictures and stuff to a subset of friends that have expressed interest in that sort of thing. It's easy enough to switch posts from All Friends to Baby Stuff to Only Me on a computer or my phone, but try to edit the Baby Stuff group on my phone (like to add someone) or heaven forbid create a new group? I can't figure out how to do it. It's at least possible, but not obvious, in the browser.

      It's like Facebook begrudgingly gave us enough privacy settings so every post isn't visible to the whole world, but they really don't want us to limit our posts to less than our entire friend list. Make that easier and more obvious, akin to Google's circles I guess, and people might be willing to share more personal information with the right subset of people more often.

  40. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At some point EVERYTHING is political, just like it's personal, despite protestations to the contrary.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  41. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

    I post a lot of news on mine, some commentary and then a link. A lot of my friends enjoy my daily news update, but I stopped putting things about me and my daily life except the random tidbit about a terrible driver or traffic.

  42. And why would I share? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Last night, someone posted a manufactured controversy. So I called them on it. Their response? Cyber-stalking across all my social media accounts and threats to call my boss to get me fired.

    Why would I be interested in posting anything at all?

  43. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by omnichad · · Score: 2

    Please stop labeling or inserting political bias into any discussion. A discussion should NOT BE pulled to involve politic.

    This is what's really wrong with Facebook.

  44. Uncool by paiute · · Score: 5, Funny

    Your mom and General Motors are on Facebook.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  45. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    I would add that political correctness, by definition, can never be perfect because it's based on one or more false premises. :-)

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  46. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IF they want my original content I should be paid.

    Turning this around, it appears that the only people who reliably post (at least in my circles) are people who want to use the site as a foundation for their business. They spend a lot of time with phony posts and what not designed to pump up their views. The number of posts I even SEE from people who I care about (i.e. not people's business) have dropped. I can go look at walls to see that they are happening from time to time, but they never show up on my timeline anymore, just the paid stuff.

    So kind of Facebook has ruined itself.

  47. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Also, it's a consequence of FBs business model.

    Some people are now aware that they're being tracked, in detail, and don't want it anymore.

    They'll still use FB to see what friends are doing & share a few funny things, but that's it anymore.

    More & more people aware that *they're* the product, and stop using it.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  48. Because Facebook doesn't give you a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They constantly add opt-out only "features" without warning people ahead of time. Gee, like I really want to see what my friend's acquaintances likes. I also doubt they wanted me to see everything they "like" either.

  49. Uh-huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would seem that when the tables are turned and it is them under the microscope, millennials DO care about privacy. Would be nice if people would make the leap in understanding that privacy is something *everyone* is entitled to. It is high past time we make digital rights equal to our physical rights.

  50. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by grahamsz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not necessarily sure if it's because there are more shares or just because there isn't as much original content.

    Ultimately for me facebook has become a lot less useful as more people are on it. It used to be mostly my siblings, a few immediate friends and some of the more tech minded people i knew from work. That was great, I could ask a technical question there and have a discussion about it. Now if i post something like that the first response is usually "lulz i have no idea what you talking 'bout", so I don't bother with stuff like that. I use dropbox to share family photos with my immediate family since I don't want them to have distribution as wide as facebook. I know I *could* set up privacy rules to maintain that stuff better but I can't be bothered.

    I strongly believe they are in a downward spiral and think it'll be hard to claw back from that. As the utility it provides to me drops, there's less incentive for me to provide value to them.

  51. Just use FB for family pics and HW by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Most people just use FB for clicking Like on family pics and to set up homework groups for classes in high school and college.

    You think we'll tell you anything useful? How p3rvy is that?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  52. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they can't be trusted with sharing then unfriendly them.

    Or, unfollow them and never see their trash in your feed again--while still leaving line of communication open.

  53. Exactly what I noticed in my feed by Kinwolf · · Score: 1

    I always kept a small friend list on facebook(around 30, give or take) but I've been mostly avoiding FB for the last 2 months, as what was a nice way to get updates on distant friends mostly became a postboard for "not-so" funny stuff taken from website designed solely to share that stuff.

  54. Censorship by Grindalf · · Score: 1

    They have A.I. that hides comments that people make on News Vendors and the like, but hides this fact from these people's accounts, on the basis of arbitrary content criteria. People encounter it, eventually note that their posts are deleted from the usership's view, but they are still visible to them and declare Zuck a commie. This happens on G+ too, another good example of randomly ascribed censorship, also in a cheeky hidden way. The vast majority of people want freedom of speech instead this situation, so they are left with a very bad taste in their mouth. They think they have found a monster! What does it take to sell and what does it take to win?

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
  55. What's the problem? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    What is really the problem with people not sharing their info? Maybe they have started to realize that they are the product.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  56. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way to a fulfilling user experience would be to get original content fed in chronological order. The algorithm feed spoils all the fun [if any is to be enjoyed at FB]

  57. typo in the op by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    "What starts out as a special and intimate place to share things grows into a big, impersonal, and professional platform"
    s/b
    "What PEOPLE IGNORANTLY BELIEVE IS a special and intimate place to share things IS FINALLY RECOGNIZED AS a big, impersonal, and professional platform"

    Thanks for the correction.

    --
    -Styopa
  58. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I look over my wife's shoulder sometimes when she uses Facebook and it just seems to be an endless stream of chain 'hey look at this funny/thought provoking/sad thing' emails. The kind I never really wanted to get, but people sent me. Not sure why anyone would want to read that.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  59. Sorry Facebook, we can't all be narcissists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the other hand, maybe more people will figure out how to create intimate groups they can post and share with. Or Facebook will make that interface more intuitive.

  60. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    Of course, that doesn't help Zuckerberg's marketing analytics or Facebook's "you are the product" business model.

    People gripe about this, but what do you expect? Even Slashdot has to pay the bills. Facebook isn't some altruistic touchy-feely social experiment, it's a business. An you are not obligated to participate.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  61. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by rsborg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The thing is, people are posting less and less even of pictures. My feed is all idiotic "shares". This is why I use FB less and less with every passing month.

    I wish there was a way to block ALL shares, and ONLY see original content created by someone I know. Of course, that doesn't help Zuckerberg's marketing analytics or Facebook's "you are the product" business model.

    I think this is a natural result of Zuckerberg's "users are dumbfucks" attitude [1], spelled out by a lack of ethics and consequently trust from the users. I know very few people in my network of recent parents that share their family photos on FB, for the simple fact that FB doesn't have a "privacy first" capability (or if that exists, that they trust FB to deliver).

    Most of these folks are sharing on Apple Photostream, or Google Photos.

    My surprise is that it took so long for this to happen.

    [1] http://www.businessinsider.com...

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  62. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The chilling effect of surveillance must also be factored in.

  63. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

    It does help Facebook's model. The problem right now is that, due to the lack of original content, people aren't paying attention to their news feeds and that means Facebook has less product to sell. I used to love FB because it enriched relationships. Now it's just a bunch of worthless auto-play videos. If there were more original content on FB, they would be able to get a much better price advertising to their users. That's the point of the article.

  64. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Well, it's kind of the same thing - just from 2 different entities. One without guns, one with.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  65. Simplicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simplicity is why I first switched to Facebook (from MySpace) back in 2006-ish. It was a nice, clean interface with no ads, or ads that were so minimal (and only in the side bar) that they didn't bother me. No stupid themes that took forever to load. No real clutter. Just what people had to share.

    Facebook no longer has that simplicity. Add to that the fact that Facebook becomes even more blatant about data mining, and makes it ever-easier for others to data mine via APIs, etc. as well as the social anxiety that has been linked to frequent checking of social media... well, stuff like that is why I closed my Facebook account for good.

  66. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by taustin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This isn't a change. It's always been the case that if you share pictures of yourself drunk, mostly naked, and swinging from the chandelier at the strip club with your coworkers, you'd likely get fired.

    The internet is a public place. Share something, and it's shared. Get over it.

    The only notable aspect to this is that people are now whining about people doing what people whined they should do:

    "You shouldn't share personal information on Facebook! That's a bad idea!"

    "OK, I'll stop."

    "OH MY GOD!!! YOU'RE NOT SHARING PERSONAL INFORMATION ON FACEBOOK!!! IT'S THE END OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION!!! DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER!!!"

    Yawn.

  67. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's curious how this is marked flamebait. When the given reason is pervasive government surveillance that is stopping people from sharing because it could cost them their job or general lively hood -- there's just agreement and applause. I don't know anyone that has gotten fired or forced to quit because of the government. I do know a few who have due to saying anything that the leftist/pc/progressives disagree with. But hey, let's keep blaming the gov/surveillance and not the other more pervasive thing that causes people to show only one image publicly for fear of consequence.

  68. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . A lot of my friends enjoy my daily news update, but I stopped putting things about me and my daily life except the random tidbit about a terrible driver or traffic.

    No, no one cares.

  69. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes yes. Any time it can be seen as a leftist/progressive/liberal(US) problem, it's always a different problem that we should join together to fight. Yet when it's a right/conservative/traditional problem -- there's no come together or blaming something other than the pubs.

  70. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I wish Facebook would release is a "no politics" filter. It's become really tedious to have half my feed consist of "Trump is Hitler" and "Hillary is Satan". I've been trying to train FB by hiding all of those and marking them as spam when it gives me the option. But it just doesn't seem to get the hint.

    --
    Imagine all the people...
  71. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by gtall · · Score: 1

    No, it isn't. It is merely being intellectually lazy to consider everything through political lenses. This is what gave us the current cesspool of people always on the lookout for "micro-slights" so they can submit to the temptation to get angry and then turn that anger into obscene outbursts in an adolescent bid for attention.

  72. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I wish Facebook would release is a "no politics" filter. It's become really tedious to have half my feed consist of "Trump is Hitler" and "Hillary is Satan".

    That's because you only see items from one side of the aisle. Everybody knows that "Trump is Satan" and "Hillary is Hitler".

  73. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

    Well yeah, but that would fuck up the flow of my pithy sentence :)

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  74. Re: They should pay me if they want original conte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is that you hon?

  75. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I shared this link https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/04/08/1515249/facebook-users-are-sharing-less-and-its-a-big-problem . I hope we aren't friends...

  76. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comment of the day.

  77. SJW lynch mobs and censorship campaigns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is why. If anything can be offensive,best to just STFU. God forbid we actually use the Internet for political debate in as an open marketplace of ideas. Can't have that. It might hurt someones feelings. We need need laws to prevent such hate speech and harassment.

    No wonder people are just staying silent,and what a fucking shame. Debate and discussion is so valueable, and for the first time in history billions of people can connect with each other

    Instead of encouraging people to discuss politics and important ideas, these asshats think it's more important that people's feelings are never hurt.

    Just look at this shit.
    Http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2527330/Blonde-female-PR-executive-tweets-Going-Africa-Hope-I-dont-AIDS-Just-kidding-Im-white-causes-international-outrage-likely-fired.html

    1. Re:SJW lynch mobs and censorship campaigns by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      God forbid we actually use the Internet for political debate in as an open marketplace of ideas. Can't have that. It might hurt someones feelings.

      Actually you can have it, just like we do here on /.
      The problem starts when people have to post as themselves.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    2. Re:SJW lynch mobs and censorship campaigns by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      She's a PR exec, and was clearly in the wrong line of work.

  78. just. plain. fucking stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    social. media.

  79. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 0

    It's become really tedious to have half my feed consist of "Trump is Hitler" and "Hillary is Satan"

    So how is this not true?

    --
    Time to offend someone
  80. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    You entirely missed the point. If everything is political, and everything is personal, it's time to grow a thicker skin because nobody is a special snowflake - everyone's in the same boat.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  81. Slack? by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

    You just explained more about it that that stupid flying umbrella commercial. Although I did like that the beaver says "Leave it to me!" Because none of the people young enough to be interested in their product would even get the reference.

  82. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by phorm · · Score: 1

    Whenever I post a picture of my young'n, or anything personal, I add them to my personal site/gallery and then fire an update to FB letting people know there's new pictures. I've already asked that family *not* post pictures of her to Facebook, just send 'em to me for inclusion in the gallery.

    I don't want to see my kid (or myself for that matter) showing up in Facebook ads or third-parties because some retarded EULA gave them permission to it.

  83. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone on my feed still keeps sharing these ridiculous strings of "words", the most tired and hackneyed memes from centuries-ago for the most part.

  84. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're claiming that a website that was originally envisioned to help people hook up is somehow a crusade to stifle free speech in the name of political correctness? That somehow it's a bad thing to instill self-censorship and civility for fear that your racists rants might be noticed by somebody looking to hire you might find out what kind of person you really are? Fascinating!

  85. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

    Yep, this is why I plan to vote for Trump if the general election is between Trump and Hillary. Hitler isn't as bad as Satan, so Trump is the obvious choice. Gotta pick the lesser of two evils.

    It'd be nice if we had an election system where we could pick the candidates we actually like, but the American People don't want that, they like the system we have.

  86. aaawww, it it hurtin' their widdle bottom wine? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    diddums, they'll have to datamine elsewhere - after all, that's what they sell. YOUR data, to which by posting you have per their terms of use granted them a nonexclusive commercial licence to which no royalties or credit is due you. Ever.

    What do you mean, you didn't read the terms and conditions??

    Right, I'm calling Tim Cook.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  87. Rape my face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    book...

  88. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a way, you're right. A conservative boss may fire you for posting atheist things, in general though, it'd have to be done in secret. Compare this against say I don't know, donating to a group leftist/PC crowd disagree with and watch you get publicly fired all while it's celebrated by the msm, social media, etc. I'm sure you weren't saying it was the same though, right?

  89. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 2

    One of the reasons(and there are many...) that I didn't create a FB account is that I have personally seen people who were at one time "real" friends get into personal/cultural/political disagreements on FB and have it turn into a huge blowup.

    I have seen people post things that then were commented on by someone else, and the person who commented said something that they didn't "intend" to cause harm, but they weren't thinking "clearly" and the repercussions were bad.

    I've seen people who IRL were on good, friendly terms then turn into enemies because of political posts and eventual flame wars

    I've seen, in effect, that when people post as themselves, and not anon that is when the problems start.
    People will say and post things on FB that they would never say IRL to someone.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  90. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, precisely, and that's one of the things I like about it the most!

    Because the sort of people who send these seem to have migrated *en masse* to Facebook, and I'm getting so much fewer of them in my actual e-mail inbox!

  91. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Or the police. They'll happily tell you that any police officer who shoots a fleeing black guy in the back did the right thing, that the black guy deserved it, shouldn't have run, etc.

  92. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything is political because every aspect of life, at least in the United States. has become subject to the agendas of groups of individuals attempting to impose their wills on other by subverting the power of the government and using it to impose their will on others.

  93. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone spouts idiocy...

    That is the fortune, isn't it? Idiocy is whatever at any given time. Spouting idiocy a few decades ago would be, I dunno... shooting from the hip, but let's say FSM & anti-religious sentiment. Where as today posting that god is dead or something is met with a pat on the back or a nod to the obvious. Today, spouting idiocy is when someone states that they don't feel comfortable with a transgendered person in the female bathroom.

    That's why it's an issue of political correctness, it's repressive and people are catching on. Worse really is that this is all digital. So while it may not be idiocy to talk smack about religion today, 20 years from now it may be again -- only in this new era of mccarthyism, they'll have record of your statements.

  94. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by chadenright · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course, that doesn't help Zuckerberg's marketing analytics or Facebook's "you are the product" business model.

    People gripe about this, but what do you expect? Even Slashdot has to pay the bills. Facebook isn't some altruistic touchy-feely social experiment, it's a business. An you are not obligated to participate.

    The problem is that Facebook is a business masquerading as some altruistic touchy-feely social experiment. When its facade wears thin and people see how it treats them and their touchy-feely social things, they tend to pick up and take their business elsewhere. Basically, Facebook could have a production problem. Its product doesn't especially want to get sold and the more FB tries to sell the more the product pushes back.

    The solution is for Facebook to tone down the salesmanship a bit and get back in touch with the touchy-feely social end of things, but that's not going to happen. When a business is threatened it doesn't lighten up on its core practices, it doubles down.

  95. One more improvement... by gwolf · · Score: 1

    Make all those interactions more interesting by having people sitting together. Offer them some beer, wine, coffee. Maybe even food. You can also even charge some extra money for such amenities, people are known to be willing to pay for VIP treatment.

    Suddenly, you will realize you are no longer stuck in the silly "you are the product" business. You are offering real goods and services.

    Congratulations! You have reinvented the ages-old "restaurant/bar" concept.

  96. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by nine-times · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I agree.

    I'm really just speaking for myself here. I can only speculate that others might have had similar experiences to me, but I definitely don't know what people are doing on Facebook or why.

    Essentially, I signed up for Facebook because it was a good way of keeping in touch with peers-- old college friends and current friends. Relatively close friends. I posted whatever I wanted, and didn't think much about it. Then I friended some people who weren't really friends, but more like acquaintances. It didn't change things much. Some of my cousins friended me, but only ones that were roughly my age, so that was fine. Then-- I remember this one event pretty clearly-- one of my aunts friended me. I was really torn. On the one hand, I did not want her to invade the my Facebook social circle. I would have to watch what I said to a much larger degree. Still, I wanted to keep in touch with her, and I couldn't think of a polite way to say "no", so I accepted her friend request.

    After that, my parents friended me. Then coworkers. Then bosses-- and by that time, I was careful enough about what I posted that I just accepted without thinking too much about it. I was already careful not to post anything too controversial or inappropriate, so I wasn't too afraid of my boss seeing it. And I was kind of friendly with my boss, so... whatever.

    Still, I posted things on Facebook. Nothing very personal. I posted photos that I would be ok with being public. I posted pretty inoffensive thoughts that I thought might be interesting or funny. But then something else started to happen. I don't know if it was because of a cultural shift or just that my network his some sort of critical mass of different viewpoints, but I couldn't post anything without someone getting butthurt. I'd post a comment about Net Neutrality, and one of my conservative uncles would start spamming me with comments about how Net Neutrality was a communist plot to destroy businesses. I'd post something about a video game, and I'd get responses relating to GamerGate. I'd mention that I'd gotten a new iPad and one person bring up the problems in Apple's Chinese factories, and another person would comment, "Apple is for fags. Android 4ever."

    I'm exaggerating a little, but not that much. Even innocuous comments had random people coming out of the woodwork to make nasty comments. It wasn't just liberal people or conservative people, Democrats or Republicans, friends from the city or redneck friends. There wasn't really a common thread. Everyone had just gotten much more serious, much less unwilling to read comments in a way that gave you the benefit of the doubt, and much more hostile. Sometimes they were my friends, sometimes friends of friends, and sometimes people I didn't know at all (e.g. commenting on one of my friend's posts, someone I didn't know would yell at me for something or other). The whole thing became so unpleasant that I just stopped. I didn't see the value in posting.

  97. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    I was glad that Eich stepped down, because he had turned into a lighting rod for Mozilla. But that incident definitely showed why you have to be careful about protecting your privacy, and about why letting your employer or the whole world know about your private life, your beliefs, your political positions, etc. is extremely dangerous and will bite you in the ass one day. No matter what your position is, someone's going to have a problem with it, and if they have power, they're likely to use it against you.

  98. Yes, the reason being that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Too many people can see my "personal" posts on FB
    - FB is too intrusive: viewing almost any FB page now wants user to login or to enter a CAPTCHA
    - FB UI is chaotic and unintuitive, and Settings are a moving target: whenever I search for help on how to change a FB setting I get mostly obsolete information
    - I feel that I have less and less control over my FB privacy and settings

    1. Re:Yes, the reason being that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, I ran a couple Ad campaigns on Facebook and all I got was thousands of "Likes" from click farms -- weirdos posting under Asian names, with most profiles showing young girls "with children" -- and so my campaign funds were gone in a few minutes.

  99. Facebook is for COWS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With their LUDDITE un-appy app. MOOO! Apps!

    1. Re:Facebook is for COWS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can do better than that appster...
      You're slippin.

    2. Re:Facebook is for COWS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      copycat

  100. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by ADRA · · Score: 1

    As it should. By your definition, words have power. They have just as much to elevate your as much as they have to bring you down. This comment like many earlier fall into the camp of "Nothing at all has changed but now you're noticing it". If you want to tell the world you like sodomizing animals, that's your business, knock yourself out, and as long as its legal wherever you are, you won't be thrown in jail. That doesn't mean that people reading your words don't have the right to feel / judge you based on them. Take some personal responsibility for yourself.

    --
    Bye!
  101. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by flink · · Score: 1

    The Facebook Purity extension has a filter that will remove "share posts" from your feed. They have a bunch of other filters to remove sponsored posts and the like as well. With the right combination of options, you can just about rewind facebook to 2008 or so.

  102. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vote Cthuhlu 2016 - Why Settle for the Lesser Evil?

  103. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By interpreting it that way, every nation has freedom of speech -- they also have varying degrees of consequences. Some may not consider that as free speech as you do though.

  104. Why geeks hate facebook by anyaristow · · Score: 2, Informative

    Facebook keeps reverting your newsfeed to "top stories" (from "latest stories"), so most people are only seeing the most popular posts. And how often are a geek's posts popular? You post, nobody reacts, you hate the platform.

    When you post, Facebook shares is with just a couple of the people who have reacted to your posts (like, share, comment) before. If they don't react, your post isn't shared with anyone else. If they do react, Facebook shares it with a few more people. They react? More people see it.

    Like most geeks, who aren't sharing pictures of friends and food and generally displaying a charmed life, my posts are about things and projects and happenstance and other boring stuff nobody cares about. I post it, Facebook shares it with a couple people who don't respond, and Facebook kills it. Nobody sees it, I don't bother posting it anymore.

    Admit it, this is how your facebook experience goes, too. So you post to slashdot how useless and intrusive Facebook is.

    1. Re:Why geeks hate facebook by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Sorry, I'm a geek and share all kinds of geeky things... some people respond to, some they don't. And I don't give a rat fuck either way. It's my feed, I'll post what I want. I don't particularly need anyone else's approval or attention.

      Your problem, like with so many other people here on Slashdot, isn't with Facebook - it's that you have a shit group of friends.

    2. Re:Why geeks hate facebook by djinn6 · · Score: 0

      If you knew beforehand your post wouldn't be seen, why bother writing it up and posting it to Facebook? At least with a blog, someone could search for and find what you wrote years down the line, and maybe save them a couple of minutes.

      As for friends, I suspect most people here don't even use Facebook to interact with them. Not the real ones anyways.

    3. Re:Why geeks hate facebook by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      If you knew beforehand your post wouldn't be seen, why bother writing it up and posting it to Facebook?

      Because I don't know whether or not they'll be seen beforehand, and because I don't know what my friends will react to or not. But those nobody responds to, no big deal. I don't need that kind of social validation.

    4. Re:Why geeks hate facebook by anyaristow · · Score: 1

      But those nobody responds to, no big deal. I don't need that kind of social validation.

      If nobody responds, then it was only seen by a few people. Facebook stopped showing it to people when the first few didn't respond.

    5. Re:Why geeks hate facebook by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      No shit Sherlock.

    6. Re:Why geeks hate facebook by anyaristow · · Score: 1

      No shit Sherlock.

      Aren't you just awesome.

  105. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ultimately for me facebook has become a lot less useful as more people are on it. It used to be mostly my siblings, a few immediate friends and some of the more tech minded people i knew from work. That was great, I could ask a technical question there and have a discussion about it. Now if i post something like that the first response is usually "lulz i have no idea what you talking 'bout", so I don't bother with stuff like that. I use dropbox to share family photos with my immediate family since I don't want them to have distribution as wide as facebook. I know I *could* set up privacy rules to maintain that stuff better but I can't be bothered.

    This is all true. The funny thing is that Facebook could have made it easier to do all of this. They could have made it easier for people to have online pseudonyms or multiple "personalities" (or whatever you want to call them) that allow you to easily group friends into various categories.

    And they sort of do that now, but it's not intuitive. And there's no way to completely separate account details unless you violate Facebook's principle that you're only supposed to have one account per real person. (Otherwise, so Zuckerberg has argued, you're being deceptive or something... despite the fact that in real life we behave as "different people" depending on our audience.)

    And you couple that with the various trends over the years where Facebook tried to deliberate undermine privacy settings you may have already made by progressively setting things to be more and more open.

    I understand why Facebook did this: they thought the more content was shared with the widest audience, the more "data points" they could get to profile you, which is what they're really trying to get to sell to other businesses to make money. The more "likes" among random friends, the more data points. But if you're only sharing most of your posts with 5 close friends, that's much less new information for Facebook.

    The problem is that people are realizing what this does -- it makes Facebook much less useful for the kind of socialization people want to do. They want to have clusters of friends -- the coworkers, the people you drink with after work, the people at church or the club or whatever. And they do NOT want that data to go between those groups. That's what most people do in real life.

    And so Facebook is starting to lose. It's main market now is for teenagers who haven't yet figured out how stupid it is to post something online that will potentially follow you for your entire life. As the rest of the adult public realizes this, they will post less and less... and a medium that allows more personalized groups and doesn't insist on a "one profile with a real name for one person that's shared with everyone" policy will ultimately be more desirable.

  106. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by mysidia · · Score: 1

    IMO I should be able to click News feed then tick a Checkbox to show 'ONLY Status Updates'

    Then go click another link and see 'ONLY Shares', then Tick an extra option to see 'ONLY Shares that Originated from Friends'

    Next, there should be an option to see ONLY Shares by Friends in a specified list.

    Finally, there should be some checkboxes that allow me to Hide shares that meet certain criteria.

    For example: Hide shares that link to an external website

    Hide shares that contain certain keywords.

    Hide shares that have been shared more than X times.

    Hide shares that have more than X likes and fewer than X likes by friends.

    ETC.

    I should be able to decide what I want to see. Just like with a UseNet reader or E-mail client and Folders/Inbox rules/spam scores.

  107. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Ksevio · · Score: 1

    A lot of those idiotic shares can be fixed by blocking the pages they come from. My block list is getting pretty extensive now, but it's helping my feed be more about people.

  108. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

    Not everyone would agree on which evil is lesser:

    "if Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons"

    --
    Imagine all the people...
  109. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same here. Other than using Facebook to see photos posted by people I know, I don't post anymore. I stick to Reddit now. Anonymity has its advantages.

  110. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The blacklisting and general punitive culture of assholishness are the problem. If the inventor of JavaScript can be blacklisted, no one is safe from it.

    But Eich didn't post anything. His name was illegally leaked from confidential government documents.

  111. I think you missed the parent's point by tacokill · · Score: 1

    In other words, people are simply learning about the downsides of Facebook.
    Yes, and one of those downsides is that if you say the wrong thing, the PC Police come after you. Anyone paying attention thinks twice before posting anything controversial on FB. It's just common sense now to most people.

  112. only one way to think on FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FB is notorious for censoring "wrong" opinions. People get their posts removed, and accounts closed for posting "incorrect" opinions.

    Due to this Opinion Conformity requirement, why would anyone bother to share their views, unless they're "correct"?

    Nobody expects the Facebook Inquisition!

  113. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by gfxguy · · Score: 2

    He didn't say it wasn't true; it's just tedious to hear everybody keep repeating it over and over.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  114. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Please stop labeling or inserting political bias into any discussion. A discussion should NOT BE pulled to involve politic.

    I actually think why should people post personal things on the public Internet anyway? If they want anyone to see their personal thought, then accept consequences because it is no longer "personal" but rather becomes public. Also, why do they think that Facebook is that PERSONAL in the first place?

    I think at some point, the facade that Facebook was "personal" became an unsupportable fantasy soon after FB went public and decided to have all sorts of garbage showing up in your stream.

    I personally HATE that they keep spamming you as if one of your friends/family are "still waiting for your response". I love that Google has ghettoed the FB/Linkedin/etc into the "Social" bucket so it doesn't hit my "important" inbox.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  115. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Reapy · · Score: 1

    It is interesting you say this. Back before social media took off I ran a webserver and wrote up basically a quick version of facebook, my friends all logged in and could post things. We used it for planning and sharing stuff over the day. Every once in a while though a topic like you mentioned would come up and people really got on one another's nerves.

    It was a consequence of spending more time with one another, even though you aren't in person, that time to read what everyone is thinking can bring up some more differences. It's easy to hang out and go tubing down a river without caring what religion/political leanings people have, but when people start posting about it, it can change a lot.

    Some people can see this as bad but I think it can also open the door for people to step up and make things better, to respect other people's views even though you don't agree. In a friend group you have more motivation to work through your disagreements and learn to function with someone you don't quite see eye to eye on.

    It also has the opportunity to foster deeper friendships if you find you agree on things that you never knew before.

    I don't know that FB though is the best place for that though, perhaps too easy to just be angry at another person and leave it at that.

  116. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by tacokill · · Score: 1

    Ha! That's laughable that you use Twitter as the example of a non-PC policed space. Nothing could be further from the truth! Twitter absolutely censors and encourages censorship of views that don't fit the typical SJW/PC vocabulary. I guess you missed their Trust and Safety Council. You should read up on it. I think you'd be interested in the subject matter and who is and is not on the council.

  117. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Vote Cthuhlu 2016 - Why Settle for the Lesser Evil?

    The trouble is, this year, Cthulhu is the Lesser Evil. (Which really ticks him off...)

  118. It's our PC culture that is doing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    We are a nation of Tut Tut'rs who do nothing but point out what others are doing wrong, and scream from the mountain tops that the person should be publicly vilified.

    If I DARE say something that is a slightest bit non-PC I will have strangers looking up my place of employment, and asking that I be fired. Or held against me for any future employment.

    Fuck that, and fuck facebook and any other social media site.

    Oh yeah, fuck Political Correctness!!

    1. Re:It's our PC culture that is doing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU FUCKING WHITE MALE!

      the no caps only post blocking is triggering me. i need to donate to bernie sanders to calm down.

  119. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by gfxguy · · Score: 1

    I've tried to explain instant run-off to people, but it seems (unbelievably) too hard to grasp. People who've participated in caucuses seem to be the only ones who get it. I believe we can implement this in the U.S. without amending the U.S. constitution, but it would require states to select electors based on instant run-off. I don't think it's the "people" who wouldn't want it (if they could grasp the concept), it's the establishment that controls the election laws now that don't want third parties to become viable - so they keep the current system and convince people third party votes are a waste. I've written my local representative with the suggestion and basically got laughed at.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  120. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Duckie01 · · Score: 1

    You can block all shares with fbpurity

    http://www.fbpurity.com/

  121. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    I'll give him that.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  122. None too soon. by choke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have always operated on Facebook as a pseudonym, and recently they blocked my account for not having any way to uniquely legally identify me. I have to admit that I am happy with that outcome, and the fact that they won't permit me onto their service without being able to identify me certainly cements my resolve to remain that way.

    --
    "No good deed goes unpunished"
    1. Re:None too soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, this..

      They didn't believe I was an 85 year old Ukrainian grandmother (who joined WELL before the current 'troubles' in Ukraine) and i accepted that, uninstalled the app from my phone (thus more than doubling the battery life) and have lived happily, with less stress, fewer hassles and a better outlook on life ever after.

      It's now over six months and I have no inclination to join that social media crowd, of any sort, again.

  123. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free speech, as in the First Amendment, just means that the government can't punish you for what you say. It has nothing to do with protecting you from saying something stupid that will get you fired. We as a society still hold people accountable for the dumb things that they say. It has always been that way. It's just that now the internet makes it a whole lot easier to record those dumb things and for others to be outraged over them.

  124. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Reapy · · Score: 2

    I can't tell you the number of times I've started writing posts or thought to reply to something when I hit shift A and press delete and close the comment. Too many eyes make it not worth it to say anything. Too many people fired or upset or eyes on.

    For me it is a bit paralyzing, I have always kept too myself what I like or dislike. When I was younger the internet was a savior, I could finally say what I wanted without fear of mockery IRL, not that i'm controversial at all, just, it was hard to let it out. With the general population being online and the datamining abilities of companies to string things together, posting anything online has become much more dangerous than speaking aloud.

    I keep trying to push through it sometimes, but it's hard. Even now I just shift A'ed this post and almost deleted. I'll put it out there this time though.

  125. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    Yea, I think semantics and writing style are important. I think that many issues that arise on FB show how bad most people are at writing and expressing their thoughts and feelings via the written word. This is probably why social networking is evolving towards a more image based system.

    The funniest/worst part is that I have been an "arbitrator" of sorts between friends/relatives who have gotten into "misunderstandings" over things that were posted on FB. They know I don't have an account so I'm sort of the neutral person.

    Yes, when it comes to politics/religion, etc, its better if people leave that out, and from I've seen on FB lately(I can log in via another account...), it seems people are doing that. It there are those who want to constantly banter about politics, etc but there are many more who just want to share cat videos, etc. To me, both of those are annoying.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  126. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 2

    but I couldn't post anything without someone getting butthurt.

    Bingo. That really is the crux of the problem.

    And what is really interesting, is there is sort of a "thinning of the skin" so to speak regarding how easy people get "butt-hurt" now, since the advent of social networking. IMHO people are way more sensitive about everything, whether it is climate change, the war in Iraq, transgender politics, the budget deficit, etc, etc.

    In a way, social networking has engendered the exact human behavioral reaction they don't want.
    Also, the recent MS chatbot incident is symptomatic of this "dumbing down" or de-civilizing of discourse via the web.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  127. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A propos, being anti-PC, I got to the point that anything that I said offended at least 1 people. I got no room for self-expression there. So I quit.

    Much funnier being AC on /.

  128. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    I don't see what's laughable I said "until recently" and "with limited success". I know twitter has reversed course on this, but its recent reversal. facebook on the other hand has always been policed at least since it out grew its college kids only rule, and with some level of efficacy.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  129. G+ circles by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    a medium that allows more personalized groups and doesn't insist on a "one profile with a real name for one person that's shared with everyone" policy will ultimately be more desirable.

    The "circles" feature of Google+ was designed specifically around this concept. Though it uses a real name, posts can be shared only with a specific circle of other users. Why didn't it take off?

    1. Re: G+ circles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Partly because Google+ is notoriously difficult to use, and partly because people realized that Google is even more invasive than Facebook with regards to collecting personal information.

    2. Re:G+ circles by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 2

      Inertia. Everyone was already on Facebook. If everything of yours is on Facebook and most everyone you know is on Facebook, then why would you use something else? While the circles feature was awesome, how many features did Google+ not have that Facebook had for some time? It's not a compelling enough reason to leave.

      It was invite only. Social networks need people. That's the whole point. Easily kills any hype momentum. Sure you don't want to bum rush a service and kill it out of the gate but Facebook was the perfect storm by flowing among colleges at first then trickling out. Google+ felt like a solution in search of a problem.

  130. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or with HOSTS!

  131. It's only a problem for Facebook. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The rest of us? Not at all.

  132. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    letting your employer or the whole world know about your private life, your beliefs, your political positions, etc. is extremely dangerous and will bite you in the ass one day

    On the other hand what is the point in having beliefs if you are not going to espouse them, or political positions if you are not going to advocate for them?

    Maybe the problem here is that we are all trying to hard to come together. It used to be communities organized around a set of beliefs. Look around this country various Protestant groups tend to be concentrated regionally. It used to be that you simply settled with people who were like you. Maybe this expands up to the international scale to when it comes to Islamic extremism and the like. Perhaps we have made the world to small a place, and we would actually be better off with higher walls around our boarders, less trade, less travel, and less talking to each other.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  133. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you might have gotten on the crazy bus.

    Do try to get off at the next stop.

  134. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Ranbot · · Score: 1

    The thing is, people are posting less and less even of pictures. My feed is all idiotic "shares". ...I wish there was a way to block ALL shares, and ONLY see original content created by someone I know....

    I agree that there should more feed filtering options. I also wish I could apply rules to my feed filter out posts containing certain words. In particular, I have few friends/family involved in home sales companies (e.g. Mary Kay, Stella&Dot, Shakeology, etc.). It's impossible to filter their marketing out of my feed except by unfriending or hiding that person from my feed entirely, which I'm not going to do because sometimes they do have posts I care about. Funny too that Facebook purposely hides official company Facebook pages unless they pay for a corporate account or sponsored posts, but they let these pyramid-scheme home marketing sales companies go free.

  135. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The unfollow thing isn't well known (imagine that) but it makes FB bearable. Mostly I unfollow people that post religion 24/7, and a few political nuts. But, they are still my pals irl, sigh.

  136. Re: They should pay me if they want original conte by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

    It's worse than just reshares. I've recently started seeing "shares" that are really just a share from a company that one of my friends had liked. Annoyingly, this also means all the companies I have liked are now posting posts that look like I shared. I'm now trying to decide between deleting my facebook account or unliking every page that I've ever liked so I'm not endorsing posts I may not approve of.

  137. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real life is at imgur!

  138. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by JazzLad · · Score: 1

    No, that's not entirely true. If I get myself a talkshow in China and spend all my time critical of Mao (or some such), I expect the government to try to stop me. Might be through coercion, might be through threat of violence (or even actual violence), but either way, to stop me. If I do the same in the US of Obama, I might get picked up by Fox News. There may be people protesting me, and I may have to deal with mean worded emails, but this is the consequences of what I am saying. Not imprisonment or threat of imprisonment. Maybe the IRS will pull out a rubber glove with my name on it, but if someone gets caught using the IRS this way, they (theoretically) get in trouble for it. This is free speech. Not "You can say whatever you want with no consequences whatsoever."

    --
    "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  139. Nobody wants to set off the next Outrage by raxtich · · Score: 1

    Social media outrage is so prevalent nowadays that even an innocent misspelling or use of a word someone deems as "offensive' can have life or career damaging consequences. I rarely post anything on facebook or any social media sites any more after one incident where I was very publicly called out for being a bigoted anti-LGBT misogynist because I made the innocent mistake of referring to someone as male who was actually trans-gendered. Once the SJWs jumped on-board, no amount of apologizing was acceptable to them. This after I spent years writing posts supporting gay-marriage, equal rights and encouraging people to vote for these things. Those very same people who "liked" my posts turned on me in an instant, one going so far as to threaten to report me to my employer. Screw Social Media.

  140. Re: They should pay me if they want original conte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remi DS me of what happened to MySpace.

  141. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by moeinvt · · Score: 2

    Nonsense. Free speech doesn't mean the absence of prior restraint (i.e. censorship imposed before you've said anything). Having Free Speech means freedom from consequences. If you know that you'll face retribution(other than ridicule or counter-argument) for expressing *wrong* opinions, then you don't really have Free Speech.

  142. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by preflex · · Score: 1

    I wish there was a way to block ALL shares, and ONLY see original content created by someone I know.

    There is a way: FBPurity.

  143. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You sound like someone I would unfollow instantly.

  144. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IRV is definitely too hard to explain to people.
    Furthermore, the first time you have an election using that system, everyone who doesn't like the result will instantly turn against it and demand that the old method be restored.
    Check out "approval voting" if you're not familiar with it. That system is much easier to explain, and although any electoral reform would be tough, I think it's more workable than IRV.

  145. re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People stopped posting content to facebook. And then THIS HAPPENED!

  146. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by gfxguy · · Score: 1

    But approval voting doesn't actually let you choose a favorite, or an order, amongst those you approve of. Definitely better than the current two party stranglehold, though.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  147. Facebook was college-only for 2.5 years by tepples · · Score: 1

    It was invite only.

    So was Facebook. For the first two and a half years of Facebook's existence, only people who could prove an affiliation with a participating university were eligible for a Facebook account. It was first tested at Harvard, then other Ivy League schools, followed by the grand opening to university students across North America in April 2004. I had already graduated in 2003 and lost access to my .edu e-mail address, making me ineligible for a Facebook account at the time. Only on September 26, 2006, did the field trial end.

    1. Re:Facebook was college-only for 2.5 years by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      Sure. But one would expect a new company would need time to ramp up operations and figure out features and the like and billed itself then as a social network for college students. It made a good bit of sense. Especially comparing web service in 2004 to those in 2011.

      Google was 13 years old when Plus launched and already had a large and diverse userbase with Gmail. One might think that they should have had some knowledge in terms of preparation regarding capacity and wanting to ensure that they could serve a significant number of those folks.

      Regardless of what Plus is, there were pretty high expectations from folks I knew about it and potentially being a Facebook killer. When they saw it couldn't do a variety of things, they went right back to Facebook. Shrugs.

    2. Re:Facebook was college-only for 2.5 years by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      It was invite only.

      So was Facebook. For the first two and a half years of Facebook's existence, only people who could prove an affiliation with a participating university were eligible for a Facebook account.

      Well, that's slightly different. It would be more accurate to say that Facebook was originally an "elite" club. Anyone with an email address at those institutions could get an account.

      A better comparison to Google+ would be the Gmail roll-out, which was by invitation only.

      Anyhow -- the "invite only" or "elite group only" stuff works well when you have a product that is SIGNIFICANTLY better than all competitors. Gmail was attractive because it was fast, clean, and offered 1 GB of storage back when that was an insane amount for free webmail. Facebook was attractive because it was really easy to use AND came pre-configured to interact with your college buddies at your institution.

      Google+? It had marginal improvements over Facebook, but it was missing the main drive behind Facebook in the first place -- which is that your friends were likely already on it, because it started in elite institutions where waves of people joined at once.

  148. I dont get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it a problem? And whom is it a problem for? The Wall St. self proclaimed "expert" that is speculating/estimating forward revenue on the growth rate of FB's revenue? (Yes). Anyone else? (Implausible)

  149. Generalize and factorize by VengefulWaters · · Score: 1

    If one generalizes a network, and makes the system provider, more secure, with websites using a higher level approach, one gets a better internet, more like society as we are used to, and also finely granulated genres will make the more intimate feel, for those interested. And this can be taken all the way to the digital government. For instance, reducing a government to, a republic like this: Prime minister: Knowledgeable person for administrating the system itself, and going through with/modifying according to advisors wishes. Is elected by the people. Advisors - advisors for each relevant political grouping. Political groups - elects advisors from their own, and index their products or services in the system. The digitized government will instead of advertising have all products indexed, with everyone having the possibility to comment, and such things can also be crossindexed, in a universalized government network, that has the popular social networking features of such services. And resources is something that exists in the moment only, and a good system will adapt to the environment as well as possible. Then ofcourse everything is universalized and connected to a real society. And ofcourse related security should be sufficient. Microsoft for instance, did more security on their games, but that can ofcourse be taken rather to the whole OS approach. Peaceful Greetings.

  150. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, precisely, and that's one of the things I like about it the most!

    Because the sort of people who send these seem to have migrated *en masse* to Facebook, and I'm getting so much fewer of them in my actual e-mail inbox!

    So, I guess in that sense, FB does serve at least one useful purpose.

  151. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To unfriend. One big problem I see with FB is that batch unfriending is not supported. There's no way to make right past mistakes [like accepting 1000+ people in the profile - because I'm famous in my town]. I don't have the time to unfriend them one by one. On top of that, FB won't allow me to sign in with NoScript on, and I'm not willing to disable it for just a moment. So, my profile is a ghost citadel. It will linger abandoned until FB meets its demise.

  152. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    I don't think so.

    The deal is pretty simple: the more broad visibility you have, the more you need to try to not offend anyone.

    So if you want to be part of some weird religious sect and convince people to join it, that's fine, but you're probably not going to do well if you're also trying to be the head of a multinational corporation, or a famous celebrity (unless you're Tom Cruise). But if you just work at the 7-11 or you work as a self-employed handyman in your small town, then no one's going to care.

    There's plenty of people who still have weird beliefs, follow various weird religions, etc. You don't know about them because they don't have a highly public profile. You do, however, know about what religion various high-visibility political figures are.

    So if you're going to have non-mainstream beliefs, go ahead, but don't expect for everyone to like it and want to vote for you or choose you for a high-level position.

    And less travel??? Yeah, if you're some kind of asshole that needs to travel to far-off places then try to force your weird beliefs on people there, maybe you shouldn't do that. Most people have no trouble traveling; they go, they visit, they're respectful of the natives there, and they don't intentionally antagonize them.

  153. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I didn't say that he did what he did publicly, I was just pointing out how having your personal beliefs aired can get you in trouble if they don't match up with whatever crowd you're trying to hang with.

  154. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Hey, at least this is one time we can BOTH be right! Win-win FTW :-)

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  155. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't a change. It's always been the case that if you share pictures of yourself drunk, mostly naked, and swinging from the chandelier at the strip club with your coworkers, you'd likely get fired.

    And yet, I wonder if you really would get fired, since none of the activity you've mentioned here is illegal. Not even close.

    And if Trump is going to be the next POTUS, then blatant in-your-face arrogance should not be condemned anymore. It should be worn like a fucking badge of honor. He sure as hell does.

  156. Re: They should pay me if they want original cont by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least he is within projecting distance of, not like your sorry ass.

  157. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

    The problem is that Facebook is a business masquerading as some altruistic touchy-feely social experiment. When its facade wears thin and people see how it treats them and their touchy-feely social things, they tend to pick up and take their business elsewhere.

    While I'd LIKE to think that's true, I don't think it really is for most people. Most Facebook users seem not to give a crap about how terrible Facebook treats them, their data, their privacy, serving up ads, whatever. Slashdot users tend to be more sensitive to these sorts of things, but I really doubt that means much to the average person on Facebook. Sure, the Facebook "user experience" (such as it is) has degraded a bit, but I don't think it's bad enough to drive more than a small percentage away.

    Instead, the current trend discussed in TFA is about Facebook becoming too FULL of people. What used to be a hangout for students and peers has now become a place for your grandparents and your boss.

    For most people, socializing with your grandparents or with your boss is a very different thing from socializing with your close friends. But Facebook tries to smear it all together... and that's not working well as a "touchy-feely social experiment."

  158. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

    I've seen, in effect, that when people post as themselves, and not anon that is when the problems start.

    People will say and post things on FB that they would never say IRL to someone.

    I think there are two separate issues related to what you bring up:

    (1) People will say (and do!) nasty things to other people when they are disconnected from them. The more impersonal the medium of communication, the more aggressive people feel free to be. Witness the use of car horns, for example. The vast majority of times someone beeps at someone else, they probably wouldn't go around shouting at that person in real life. But they beep nonetheless.

    (While I'm on this topic, I should note that I don't think anonymous posts solve this problem -- they actually exacerbate it. But you're right that they solve the social problem of not alienating your friends if you don't identify yourself by name.)

    (2) Part of the problem is the platform itself. By default, most people tend to post to all their "friends," but that category has come to encompass not only close actual "friends" but random acquaintances, coworkers, business acquaintances/clients, your boss, your grandparents, etc. There are very few things you could ever say to such a diverse group of people that won't offend SOMEONE at SOME point.

    And people know this in real life -- in real life, they wouldn't say a lot of these things to certain people. But they don't tend to worry about it as much on Facebook, because they're often posting to the people with whom they mostly interact on Facebook... not thinking about what a random acquaintance might think, because they probably don't really know them well enough. Nevertheless those posts are going out to them too.

  159. Unfriendly Readers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In addition to friends and family who don't all need to know everything, fault-finding employers and the odd stalker, there's the god-damned cops just dying to take a disliking to something you say. Ditch these social networks completely, they are not your friend.

  160. Re: They should pay me if they want original conte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was predictable. I mean, they could have delayed it a lot by not being so user and privacy hostile, but my way or the highway is pretty typical of silicon valley twerps.

    I wonder how many 20 something 'investors' are gonna get ruined by the only stock they buy tanking. Might be their first introduction to the fact that there's a real world out there.

  161. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Lotana · · Score: 1

    Thank you for posting it. It is very insightful. Myself and a lot of my close friends I spoke about this have similar experiences.

  162. Facebook has limited utility by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

    It's only really useful for coordinating who's going to an event, easier than trying to get hold of everyone by phone and coordinating that way.

    And that's about it, honestly. Everything else is noise or just a copy of news I already have in my feeds.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  163. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck does this have to do with being "right-conservative"? I'm a flaming left-of-Chomsky liberal, and I don't want the whole world privy to my private life, either.

  164. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  165. Re: They should pay me if they want original conte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This.

  166. Re: They should pay me if they want original conte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Delete your account and open a new one, this time being more judicious in your choice of friends. Duh.

  167. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't restricted to Facebook.

    Much of the online "social" world has become a platform for bullies, which makes it less friendly and useful.

  168. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MAYBE all these twerps will get back to work instead of farting around with their phones at the office!

  169. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    IF they want my original content I should be paid. They are making money off of my hard work taking that stupid picture.

    Donald Trump Syndrome

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  170. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    The thing is, people are posting less and less even of pictures. My feed is all idiotic "shares". This is why I use FB less and less with every passing month.

    Welcome to understanding how useless shit dies.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  171. Re: They should pay me if they want original conte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Years ago, I unfriended everyone, including my mother. Then I deleted almost all of my posts and redacted my profile picture. Next, I shut down my account. It's not a problem for me.

  172. Refreshing by whipnet · · Score: 1

    This thread was very refreshing to me as I thought I was alone in not ever joining facebook as I saw what it was from the very beginning. A tool to hate the people you once thought of as friends. But after this thread I feel that there are sensible people and only the gormless attention whores are its users.

  173. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right, they should share revenues like YouTube does. No shortage of new content there.

    Instead, Facebook charges publishers to share the content they've provided (free!) to their followers, and which they are advertising against.

    It's self-defeating, especially when you throw in the normal decreasing interest that all social media networks see.

  174. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by JoelEmmett · · Score: 1

    Right, they should share revenues like YouTube does. No shortage of new content there. Instead, Facebook charges publishers to share the content they've provided (free!) to their followers, and which they are advertising against. It's self-defeating, especially when you throw in the normal decreasing interest that all social media networks see.

  175. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Some people are now aware that they're being tracked, in detail, and don't want it anymore.

    ... which is essentially why I suspended my account a couple of weeks ago. That'll take my monthly interaction with Facebook down by a couple of hours.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  176. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a way to hide shares, it's a brilliant browser add-on called FB Purity, it has hundreds of newsfeed filtering options such as hiding stuff people have shared, and also has loads of Facebook customisation options as well. You can get it here: http://fbpurity.com

  177. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is one already, it's a browser add-on called FB Purity, it lets you setup your own word or phrase filters that filter out any posts in the newsfeed that contains them. It has lots of other filtering and customization options too, its really great! : http://fbpurity.com

  178. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people are now aware that they're being tracked, in detail, and don't want it anymore.
    More & more people aware that *they're* the product, and stop using it.

    So maybe all the ranting I have done to my friends is paying off.

    I have never had an FB account. I tell all my friends that do have one NEVER POST ANYTHING ABOUT ME IN THEIR POSTS. Especially photos connected to my name.

    I am NOT a product.

  179. Poorly written article... by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    Slashdot certainly has degenerated last few years, used to be a poster with a history of such shitty articles wouldn't get any attention at all.

    Pretty much everything about this article is shit. It's a great example of how NOT to write an article.

  180. That's too bad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps users are realizing that Facebook is using anything they share to make money off of marketing and realize that any photos you post on Facebook becomes the property of Facebook. Maybe it is how they keep nagging you because you never included a telephone number when you signed up years ago and will never give out your phone number to them. Maybe it is the constant changes in their privacy policy and how you often have to opt-out of new "features" to protect your privacy.

  181. Re: They should pay me if they want original conte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ðY

  182. Computing is HATEFUL!? Posts DO NOT DOWNLOAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why post something new if you can no longer display/load it? Why add to the clutter by sharing? YOU ARE ONLY PRODUCING A MESS. The original idea of the tool was to keep notes, not dough of content. This is happening in all sites I visit: THEY DO NOT _FUNCTION_ ANYMORE. But you all want to be so politically correct you do not touch the issues. Same with likes, you cannot like without falling into a stack of like, but you d like this and that like to be top and the others just forgotten. If I keep sharing what I liked, people (I) would no longer find what I posted in my own page! And it is more important than the next like. Fortunately now I can Save and watch later and no one will know.

  183. Re: They should pay me if they want original conte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Confused. I am. A moment ago I am reading Comments & Reply postings about Facebook decline,l; suddenly I now am reading a Politics thread or Satirical Comedy thread. Did I click on wrong tab or am I victim of hijack?

  184. Re: They should pay me if they want original conte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell that to your parents.

  185. The Money Train is slowing down by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

    Considering Failbook sells your info to the highest bidder and people are stupid enough to actually believe they don't because they say so:

    I never thought this day would come!

  186. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by vandamme · · Score: 1

    You can send a Tweet whenever you take a shit. We are all breathless in anticipation.

  187. WAY Uncool by vandamme · · Score: 1

    Your GRANNY is on Facebook.

  188. Anti-social by lars_boegild_thomsen · · Score: 1

    Come on guys - think about it. Facebook have in fact managed to turn themselves into the world's first anti-social social network. And _that_ is quite an achievement really.

  189. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by stub667 · · Score: 1

    Its just another 'chilling effect' variant really.

  190. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by null+etc. · · Score: 1

    Makes ya realize that all those social rules that inhibit us from flapping our yaps all the time are actually kind of preferred over the "let me just share MY opinion" that online communication tends to engender.

  191. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by null+etc. · · Score: 1

    And it is actually kind of disheartening to see someone you respect, or are close with, start to spout off some totally disrespectable, small-minded bigotry / arrogance / fallacious / hateful / stereotypical / closed-minded spew of garbage.

  192. You miss the entire point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody can setup a website to share what they want with their friends and family.... but it costs a few bucks a month. Go buy a package at a place like GoDaddy or one of their competitors and you often get free tools, help etc to go along with the domain name.

    Facebook is something different: They give you a "free" webpage, all branded "Facebook" of course, and then spy on you and all your friends and family, analyzing you like insects under a microscope in order to print money for Zuckerberg by selling everything they learn about you to everybody willing to buy it.

    If Facebook or some competitor did as you suggest, it would severely limit the data they collected and thus cap the value of what they are selling. They would no longer be able to keep Mr and Mrs Zuckerberg in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.

  193. Twitter's Trust and Safety Council just okay'd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Azealia Banks Twitter rants calling for Sarah Palin to have her head forcibly shaved before being made a sex slave to black men and being repeatedly gang raped by such men with it being filmed and released to the world then Sarah being locked into a cupboard.

    Leftists and the operators of Twitter are the lowest form of life on Earth, beneath even common slugs. All the SJW screeches about "tolerance", are and always have been, complete and utter bull excrement.

    "Tolerance" is choosing to endure that which you oppose. Leftists who always talk about tolerance do not seem to know the meaning of the word; they are outraged by and try to eliminate any speech that makes them uncomfortable or opposes their ideology and routinely call for the rape and murder of their political opponents.

  194. Remember: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    David Letterman "joked" about raping Sarah Palin's under age daughter.

  195. Chronological vs. Algorithmic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook went with algorithmic in 2006. We raged and warned them this is what they'd reap. It's taken a decade, but it goes apace.

  196. BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is BS. It's an election year and I've never seen so much Facebook activity.

  197. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'teenagers who ... post something online that will potentially follow you for your entire life. ' Thing about some parents who post almost anything about their children and seeing this stuff when they grow up.

  198. Re:It's more than just "I don't want grammy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was trying to describe this phenomena recently, it's like all of a sudden the entire internet took up trolling, most of them without even knowing it.

  199. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by q4Fry · · Score: 1

    We had that with NOPPL ("No Politics, Please"), but it may have gone defunct. Or perhaps some malware author is just waiting to take over the extension and shoulder-surf your Facebook sessions.

  200. Re:They should pay me if they want original conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this youtube video shows how you can filter out all that political crap https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifYQhqYnwao