ShatChat: How Facebook's Bizarre Obsession With Snapchat Is Ruining User Experience On Messenger (500ish.com)

Columnist MG Siegler writes: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." I often find myself pointing to this quote from Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park. It's just so succinctly perfect for so many things. This week's example: Facebook Messenger's new 'Day' functionality. [...] They've [Facebook] decided to weaponize all of these networks [Facebook, Messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram], user experience be damned. On Messenger, people have their list of contacts and/or groups that they chat with. The most recent conversations -- likely the most important -- are at the top of that feed. But if you're anything like me, you're often scrolling down a bit because you have many regular conversations. And so this screen real estate is insanely valuable. And Messenger puked up this new 'Day' nonsense all over it. Yes, people share photos on Messenger. Undoubtedly a ton. That's maybe how you try to justify this move to yourself if you're Facebook. But Messenger is fundamentally about chatting; it's a utility. Photos may be additive, but they're not core. You could try to pivot your service into making them core, but that doesn't mean you should.As of last year, Facebook Messenger has over a billion active users.

Comments

"But Messenger is fundamentally about chatting; it

[DogDude]

No. Messenger is fundamentally about mining data.

Facebook doesn't give a flying fuck what you or anybody else things about Messenger or any of their software, so long as people continue to give them all of their personal information for free.

Messenger the only reason I have FB

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there are old friends I can only communicate by Messenger, I have still have a FB account.

I noticed this photo annoyance yesterday, and it's one more step towards FB not being worth it for me..

Re: Messenger the only reason I have FB

[Doloresanto]

Don't these friends have phones? Stop giving yourself excuses. You don't need neither FB nor Messenger. Nobody uses "just Facebook" these days. There are alternatives all over.

Re:Messenger the only reason I have FB

[agm]

I refuse to use Messenger no matter how many messages it says I have. I won't have what should be private conversations mined by a company that sells me as a product to advertisers.

So don't use it, dumbass

[realmolo]

Seriously, nobody that isn't a teenager or an emotionally stunted adult uses ANY of those things.

The idea that you *need* to use all of these "messenger" apps is ridiculous. You don't need to be in constant, *pointless* communication with your friends. Or your coworkers.

Just turn that shit off, and get on with your lives. Eliminating the endless, ego-boosting "small-talk" that these apps provide is good for your soul.

Re:So don't use it, dumbass

[Anonymous Coward]

Using a phone number to communicate is becoming out-dated.

Re: So don't use it, dumbass

[Anonymous Coward]

How about pen and paper?

Re: So don't use it, dumbass

[jovius]

You're right there's no need. They are means of communication however, and having many brings redundancy (for plain and simple inter family communication for example). It's up to any user how they fill the channels, but it would also be a bit backwards to not use modern tools at hand, to complement the traditional. Use cases are many, and one model doesn't fit for all.

Re:So don't use it, dumbass

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

You don't need to be in constant, *pointless* communication with your friends. Or your coworkers.

But they think they do. Partly from FOMO (fear of missing out) and partly because they're inept at forming substantive relationships that can weather short periods of being apart.

Take away their phones and facebook, messenger, etc and most of their "relationships" and "friends" would completely disappear in a week or two, and virtually ALL of them would be gone after a month or more.

Being in constant contact is wearying for most people even if they won't admit it (or can't recognize it).

Re:So don't use it, dumbass

[Khyber]

"You don't need to be in constant, *pointless* communication with your friends. Or your coworkers."

I most certainly do need to be in constant contact with my coworkers, especially when I can't scream down the mine tunnel "Get out, detonation in five minutes" and have everybody hear me. But, I have a cell repeater installed in the mine, so I just SMS everyone, I wouldn't use Messenger because FaceBook cant program a solid anything for shit.

Re:So don't use it, dumbass

[Neuronwelder]

I am so glad that someone mentioned Ego. Unleashed Ego will get you into more trouble, faster than you can imagine. In a nutshell it turns you into a "king" or a "queen". And should anyone dare insult your high and mightiness, your visceral reaction is HOW DARE YOU!!

Re: So don't use it, dumbass

[Anonymous Coward]

Or ink and quill on parchment delivered by carrier pigeon.

Re:So don't use it, dumbass

[serviscope_minor]

Seriously, nobody that isn't a teenager or an emotionally stunted adult uses ANY of those things.

Sounds like someone is bitter that not everyone in the world is identical to you.

The idea that you *need* to use all of these "messenger" apps is ridiculous. You don't need to be in constant, *pointless* communication with your friends. Or your coworkers.

Need? Well, in fairness you don't *need* to complain about them on slashdot, yet you do. Why?

Just turn that shit off, and get on with your lives.

Thanks but no. I use IM primarily for talking to my SO and a bit talking to my cow-orkers, who happen to be in other countries (I use email for longer less immediate stuff and phone calls for more immediate things). Occasionally I speak to friends who are living too far away to meet in person.

Eliminating the endless, ego-boosting "small-talk" that these apps provide is good for your soul.

Just because you can only imagine one way of using them (i.e. for small talk), doesn't mean others are incapable of having useful interactions over them.

Re: So don't use it, dumbass

[Anonymous Coward]

Flint, wood and a blanket anyone?

Re:So don't use it, dumbass

[Anonymous Coward]

So how am I supposed to communicate with coworkers? You expect me to talk to them?

Re:So don't use it, dumbass

[BronsCon]

Just because you can only imagine one way of using them (i.e. for small talk), doesn't mean others are incapable of having useful interactions over them.

You seem to use them in a reasonable manner, as do I. My wife, on the other hand, and many like her (I dare say the majority of IM users) do not. Clearly, the post you were replying to was directed at those users and not at us.

Re:So don't use it, dumbass

[Dog-Cow]

-1 : Unrestrained Ego

Re:So don't use it, dumbass

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, nobody that isn't a teenager or an emotionally stunted adult uses ANY of those things.

The idea that you *need* to use all of these "messenger" apps is ridiculous. You don't need to be in constant, *pointless* communication with your friends. Or your coworkers.

Just turn that shit off, and get on with your lives. Eliminating the endless, ego-boosting "small-talk" that these apps provide is good for your soul.

A small correction here - I think you left off the "Now get off my lawn!"...

Re:So don't use it, dumbass

[BronsCon]

I dare say that moderation belongs on the comment I was replying to. That poster's ego kept him from seeing that the comment he was replying to was not directed at him and made him reply as though he were under attack.

Re:So don't use it, dumbass

[pr0fessor]

I've used all kinds of messenger applications over the years at work... I especially like the ones that will allow me remote control.

You messed the same thing up for the 5th time this week? Give me control and I'll fix it real quick.

Re: So don't use it, dumbass

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading comprehension, do you have it?

He said *pointless* communication.

Re:So don't use it, dumbass

[nine-times]

I would agree if you said that we shouldn't need so many messenger apps or that we don't need gimmicky. You basically need one, and it needs to be able to send text messages.

But "we don't need text messages" is a little bit of a silly response to all of this. I mean, no, we don't "need" it in the hunter/gatherer sense of the word, just like we don't need email, telephones, computers, or any number of other things. But culturally, modern communication is almost entirely face-to-face, over email, or in some kind of text messaging (or instant messaging, which is the same thing). And if I had to guess, I'd say that more of it is happening over text messaging than any other medium.

And I'm not talking about some weirdo teenagers conducting ego-boosting "small talk". I'm talking about normal communications, from parents talking to children or coworkers conducting business, it's largely taking place over some kind of text/instant message. Sure, there are teenagers conducting ego-boosting small-talk, but if you go back a few decades, it was the same thing, they were just talking on the phone instead.

Re: So don't use it, dumbass

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer to just piss on things.

captcha: imprint

Re:So don't use it, dumbass

[brantondaveperson]

I 'need' a tool that permits me to send a message to multiple people, so that we can organise things, and arrange where to meet, and when. It's very silly to imagine that all conversation between friends is pointless. I am getting on with my life, thanks, and in order to do so, I going to find out whether or not such-and-such a group of people are available on a particular date. I'm not going to call their landlines, because they don't have one, and in any case, why would I call their *house*? That makes no sense. I will send a message instead. What's wrong with that?

Re: So don't use it, dumbass

[brantondaveperson]

So his point is that pointless communication is pointless?

There's irony in that, somewhere.

Re:So don't use it, dumbass

[serviscope_minor]

No it was directed at everyone. The op clearly hadn't considered the idea that these tools can be used well as badly. It's a common mistake.

Re: So don't use it, dumbass

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you marry her then if she's so stupid? You must be an idiot too

Snapchat::Facebook Facebook::Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like facebook is making exactly the same mistake trying to emulate snapchat that google made trying to do their own version of facebook.

I hope it works out just as well for them.

Totally

[Anonymous Coward]

"But if you're anything like me, you're often scrolling down a bit because you have many regular conversations."

Heh heh.... yeah.... totally know what you mean dude....

I wish I could say I don't care

[sl3xd]

Unfortunately, I do care. I'd pay good money to not read this sort of drek on Slashdot.

Re:I wish I could say I don't care

[Frederic54]

Cannot you filter "facebook" from your front page?
Just checked, there is a "Exclude stories by topic" option but you cannot select "facebook" :-/

Re:I wish I could say I don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

God forbid you scroll past without clicking

The real problem: Millennials can't design UIs.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just a small example of the much bigger problem: Millennials, as a group, just cannot design and develop usable software UIs.

From the dawn of computing through to the mid-2000s, we saw an incremental progression in the functionality and usability of software UIs. New UIs were typically better than what preceded them.

Then between 2000 and 2010 we started seeing more and more Millennials get involved with software UI design as they started to enter the workforce. And everything went to hell.

This is a generation that has egos so big it makes the Boomers look modest! Millennials don't care about the past. They don't care about building on good ideas rather than bad. They don't care about what users want. They're so sure that their ideas are "right" that they force them on others.

So instead of continuing the work of previous generations, they just threw out all of this accumulated knowledge. They used their own self-proclaimed "great UI design ideas" and gave us awful UIs like those of Australis Firefox, of GNOME 3, of Windows 8 to 10, and of so many websites. Not caring what users actually think of these designs, they've never been responsive to feedback. It's just one bad idea after another with them.

Now before you start with the "shut up, gramps" and "get off my lawn" bullshit, I actually think that the generation after the Millennials may be able to rectify this awful situation. They've been victims of the Millennials shenanigans, but they also tend not to have the egos of Millennials. Many of them also have an interest in retro computing. It's an eyeopening experience for them when they use something like Windows 2000, and they find that its UI is actually more efficient and pleasant to use compared to the Windows 10 experience they're more familiar with.

This post-Millennial generation will be entering the workforce within the next 5 to 10 years. I hope that they can undo all of the nonsense that Millennials have done so that they can get back to what the generations before the Millennials were doing: steadily improving upon UIs that are functional and usable.

Re:The real problem: Millennials can't design UIs.

[spire3661]

Its not millennials, its apathetic users. People are MORONS and refused to acknowledge we are neck deep into an INFORMATION AGE. So few actually know what a bit or byte is, they dont know what an Operating System is supposed to be. Its all apathy and ignorance driving tech design today, has nothing to do with generations. Grandma who refused to learn basic comp sci is just as much to blame as millenials.

Re:The real problem: Millennials can't design UIs.

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

There is an uncomfortable amount of truth in this, especially the comments about Australis Firefox, GNOME 3, and Windows 8 to 10.

Many of them were so taken with the ability to code some interesting or novel UI feature that they never stopped to ask if "interesting" or "novel" was better than what was already in use. In most cases it wasn't.

Re:The real problem: Millennials can't design UIs.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that users subjected to the awful UIs of Millennials are "apathetic".

In fact, I've seen the exact opposite: these users are very outspoken against the UI changes that have been made.

A close-to-home example is the Slashdot Beta site from a few years ago. It embodied so many characteristics of Millennial-designed UIs: it was less intuitive, it was less efficient, it wasted a lot of space, and users hated using it. There was a massive backlash here, with many people leaving, and not returning, even after the Beta project was finally terminated.

We've seen the same with Firefox. It once enjoyed 30% or more of the browser market. After many awful UI changes, most of Firefox's users have left for Chrome, Safari, or even Edge. Firefox is now down to only about 5% or 6% of the browser market. Now the UIs of these other browsers aren't all that much better than Firefox's (they've also been influenced by terrible Millennial UI "design" practices). It's just that they aren't as bad, and there's not much choice for users to begin with.

And we've seen the same with GNOME 3. GNOME 2 was among the most widely used Linux desktop environments in its day. Then GNOME 3 came along, and users expressed their dislike of it so loudly. The GNOME developers didn't act on this feedback, and many of the users jumped to desktop environments like MATE, KDE, or Xfce.

And yet again, we've seen the same sort of response from users to Windows 8 and 10. They express their displeasure very loudly, and they continue to use Windows 7 or even XP, assuming they haven't moved to macOS.

The users aren't apathetic. They do provide lots of feedback. When this feedback goes ignored, they do the only thing they really can do: they stop using the software with a Millennial-ruined UI and move on to the next best alternative. This isn't apathy or inaction; it's completely action.

Re:The real problem: Millennials can't design UIs.

[theArtificial]

I think you're confusing generations, Gen X is in power. As demonstrated by the Ribbon UI.

Re:The real problem: Millennials can't design UIs.

[Anonymous Coward]

This generational bullshit has always been bullshit, and has always been promoted by idiots with inferiority complexes that have no grasp on basic reality.

Re:The real problem: Millennials can't design UIs.

[Megane]

Have you tried using Discord? One group I was involved with moved to it from IRC.

Discord starts with badly contrasting colors for body text*, then adds tons of sidebar panes that you can't hide whether nor not you care about them. So the window takes up most of my screen (shrinking the window only shrinks the chat area), when I used to could follow the chat on IRC on the side of a wide-screen monitor and still have room for web browsing.

Yep, definitely a millennial UI. Please save us from this crap, Gen-Z!

* The stupid old Web 2.0 85/85 meme: 85% size, 85% gray, but they use a 15% gray background too! It also defaults to white-on-black, but at least the only other theme is black-on-white. I hate white-on-black, because I prefer to just turn down my display backlight when the room is dark. I hate it enough that I even made custom CSS for Hackaday.

Re:The real problem: Millennials can't design UIs.

[Anonymous Coward]

While everyone is done millennials for everything, be sure to exclude that the last election was ran out of a nursing home.

Re:The real problem: Millennials can't design UIs.

[GuB-42]

This is a generation that has egos so big it makes the Boomers look modest! Millennials don't care about the past. They don't care about building on good ideas rather than bad. They don't care about what users want. They're so sure that their ideas are "right" that they force them on others.

Rejecting the past is what "generations" do.
What you said is what people of every single generation in existence said since the beginning of life itself. Just replace "boomers" with the generation before them and "millennials" by the one after.

Re:The real problem: Millennials can't design UIs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Millennials, as a group, just cannot design and develop usable software UIs.

That's a pretty broad claim, got anything to back that bullshit up? It's far more likely the current UI design is a product of aiming to please the lowest common denominator of their global user base.

Re:The real problem: Millennials can't design UIs.

[brantondaveperson]

No - the real problem is that we expect all of this software to be written for us, usable user interfaces and background services ect etc, to be provided for free.

Free instant messaging, with bespoke applications for Android and iOS, and an extremely complex web application. We expect it all for nothing. And then, when the organisation that's producing all this, decides to modify it so that they can actually make some money out of it, we get all upset.

How about people drop *that* idea, and instead pay for things?

Re: "But Messenger is fundamentally about chatting

[Anonymous Coward]

stop using that faceshit garbage. What's it good for anyway?

Re:"But Messenger is fundamentally about chatting;

[thegreatbob]

Wild speculation, but perhaps they are trying to somehow differentiate the ways in which people find different things to be important/significant.

There is only one UI Issue on Messenger

[cloud.pt]

And it's Facebook's obsession with the "don't leave the app" paradigm. Youtube links, html5 video links, gifs and even common pic format links, they're all messed up both on preview and on the follow up link. Youtube is particularly obnoxious, you have to click twice: click once and the video preview disappears, gets replaced by the lone link itself, which on second click actually opens something else (which also inconsistently fluctuates between a chrome tab inside Messenger running html5 Youtube, an external similar Chrome tab, or the Youtube app itself).

But the worst of all, even Facebook's own links are f'd up - I'd love it if I could get an FB link from a post, user, comment or live vid link on Messenger that actually previews, loads and/or opens consistently IN THE FB APP instead of the browser or messenger itself. They just got it real bad on the Android implementation. It just seems to behave differently depending on: 1. the device you're using; 2. the device people are using; 3. the way people copied/shared the item on their side. It's stupid, as in pre-html5, pre-Android stupid. There is only one thing that nags me even more tha this Messenger quirks on Android, and it's the share location function of Google Maps, which deliberately ignores providing standardized location data anywhere it goes, only providing links to a gmaps-centered position, without even a pin or "navigate to" options.

And yes, I have messed around with both Messenger and Facebook apps' "always open externally", "don't use internal browser" or "whatever da fck it's called this week's update so we have a reset justification and you get it back again". It still sux, and always falls back to Chrome who will not redirect it to the app Intent because it was already redirected.

Use Messenger Lite

[Anonymous Coward]

Coincidentally, I got tired of this yesterday evening, and installed the less official Messenger Lite. It's supposed to be used in countries with less data bandwidth, and thus it just has chat. It's brilliant. I found it here (as it is not in playstore):
http://www.apkmirror.com/apk/facebook-2/messenger-lite/messenger-lite-5-0-0-4-40-release/facebook-messenger-lite-5-0-0-4-40-android-apk-download/

Re:Use Messenger Lite

[AuMatar]

I know /. is gone downhill these days, but I hope its still technical enough not to download a random apk from an unknown website by an anonymous poster.

Re: Use Messenger Lite

[Zorpheus]

There is a lite messenger on Google play though. No need to use this shady link.

Re: Use Messenger Lite

[trawg]

FWIW the FB Lite Messenger on Google Play is only available in some countries (e.g., IIRC, India). It is designed for older phones and they have artificially limited availability.

I can't install it on my N5X in the UK: "This app is incompatible with all of your devices." I would install it in a flash if I could.

Re: Use Messenger Lite

[Zorpheus]

Oh. It works fine on my Moto X Play in UK

Re: "But Messenger is fundamentally about chatting

[Anonymous Coward]

yanks are obsessed with it. It's a good way to promote your shit to them.

Not just the messenger

[Doloresanto]

Facebook is running everything it touches.

When was the rest of Facebook good UI?

[TodPunk]

I use Facebook, and I'm aware of the consequences of that choice, but I have never been under the impression that it was a good user experience for anything.

- It's not a good blogging engine
- It's not an intuitive navigation for maintaining your friends list
- It's not a good forum and regularly stifles good discussion
- It's not a good marketing engine for actual engagement for your brand (good click-through rate, good demographic targeting, that's about it)
- It's not a good photo album manager
- It's not a good event organizer (though I will say it's WAY more useful than Meetup, for some reason)
- It's also not a good Instant Messenger either, and never was

What exactly are we losing by them doing other not-good UIs for things? It's not like snapchat is any better. Good god their UI is terrible. I get that some have figured out how to use it in spite of this, but this is not because it's intuitive, it is because it is popular. See also: Facebook.

Re:When was the rest of Facebook good UI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I still miss the days when my friends were active on Livejournal.

Is that what it is?

[nine-times]

Honestly, I was wondering what happened to Facebook Messenger. I hadn't realized that it was trying to compete with SnapChat, which I've never used and I don't think I ever will. I do know that Messenger was, for me, a somewhat unnecessary but tolerable text-messaging application that I used to keep in touch with some Facebook contacts, and it suddenly became an unusable mess. I deleted it after it launched, post-update, and suddenly started asking me for access to all kinds of things (access to location, address book, and other stuff) and kept asking repeatedly after I said "no". That was the 5-ton straw that broke the camel's back.

It seems like every time Facebook "fixes" or "improves" something, I hate the platform more.

Re:Is that what it is?

[cloud.pt]

It asking for all those permissions is not their problem, it came bundled with the Marshmallow update, and you probably noticed it in all other apps that started targeting Android Marshmallow.

Basically, your previous version of the app (and all other apps in this scenario) showed those permissions at install time (and simply didn't install if you denied any of them), but developers were forced to ask explicitly during app use for individual permissions. Devs now have the option to either keep "permission-asking" as a big block of subsequent "yes/no" dialogs at first boot, or request individual permissions with those dialogs when the permission is first needed (e.g.: first time taking a picture induces storage and camera permissions).

In short: most if not all that changed permission-wise was that instead of restricting installs to people who granted permission for EVERYTHING they needed, they now have to ask individually per permission. Blame Google on that one, but as an Android dev who is also a user, it looks sleeker to me like this, but unlike Messenger apps should use the later paradigm of asking when features actually need a permission, not in bulk.

Re:Is that what it is?

[nine-times]

It asking for all those permissions is not their problem, it came bundled with the Marshmallow update, and you probably noticed it in all other apps that started targeting Android Marshmallow.

Nope. I have an iPhone. And honestly, a lot of apps request access to information like contact lists or location, and that in itself doesn't bother me. But somehow I got hit with about 7 prompts in the first 2 minutes of using the apps, sometimes asking for access to the same information multiple times, after I'd said "no".

At least, I'm pretty sure that's what happened. I wasn't exactly counting at the time, but I'm not intentionally exaggerating. I just remember being prompted over and over again for all kinds of information, and trying to hit "no" and "skip" only to be prompted with something else, and my general response was "Holy crap. I'm just exiting out of this and deleting it rather than dealing with all this crap."

Blame Google on that one...

Setting aside that this is Apple and not Google, I won't blame them either way. I want my phone OS to ask before giving apps access to information, and I can't think of another app that has so relentlessly harassed me about gaining access to private information.

Re:Is that what it is?

[cloud.pt]

Well, if you're on iOS, that's a completely different story. But on Android, after Marshmallow those 7 prompts are not unusual. You mentioned an update and multiple dialogs asking permission, and it sounded very familiar, as it is exactly what happens in Marshmallow-bound or newer apps that need a lot of permissions.

Nevertheless, saying "no" and it asking again is pretty "sucky", UI-wise, and that is indeed a fault, but we all know most tech companies these days are about exit strats, and most exists either come from heavy data mining, ad-based revenue or a combination of both, and it's nothing specific to Facebook (e.g.: Google, Apple, Microsoft... they all do it now)

How people use a tool

[Elfich47]

How people use a tool does not always match how the tool maker thought the tool was going to be used. Sometimes the tool maker tries to adapt an existing tool to do things it was not designed to do, without considering how the current users use the tool.

Right now Facebook is falling into the second category. A competitor (snapchat, imagepotato, etc) has a tool that does something different from Facebook. So of course Facebook has to do the same thing. But facebook isn't considering the use case of snapchat versus facebook. Snapchat is the antithesis of facebook. Nothing is saved after the message is sent so there is nothing to data crunch, either you saw the message or you didn't. That is why people moved to facebook, to be outside the facebook environment. The last thing in the people some people want to share is "your friend is curious about [ostensibly sensitive subject that the friend hasn't discussed with anyone], do you want to know more about it". It is no wonder that people avoid facebook for some subjects.

iMessage

[MikeDataLink]

Apple has the same obsession and it is ruining iMessage!

Went back to SMS

[Anonymous Coward]

I deleted my facebook account and went back to using SMS exclusively via Signal. Messenger was nice a few months ago before they shat all over it with their obsession over snapchat.

Cue the "I don't have a Facebook account" posts.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the new "I don't have a TV"

Facebook never cared about UI/UX

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook never cared about UI/UX. Why is this news.

Am I the only one...?

[Anonymous Coward]

That installs the Messenger app when I need to communicate with folk using it, and then uninstall it afterwards?

It's just plain annoying, especially how it wants to hover its crap over the top of everything else.

(And hey, lets call it 'Messenger'... because it's not like there are any other apps out there called 'Messenger', and definitely no apps that might be system installed default apps....)

Re:"But Messenger is fundamentally about chatting;

[Topmounter]

I'd say this is an example of the GAFAM logjam trying to stay ahead of the momentum of the masses. However I don't see Snapchat as the existential threat to Facebook's dominance, but in lieu of any better candidates it is a trendy placeholder.

Time for a new standard

[Tablizer]

The industry needs to come up with a "social networking standard" (SNS) so that the IT oligopolies don't control all the data. The SNS would allow smaller providers to host social network data that can coordinate with other providers. The people you share with wouldn't have to use the same vendor. It's kind of like SMTP for social networking and chat apps.

SNS ideally should allow users to carefully limit what is shared with who, and by default be fairly strict.

It could practically kill Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat, but that's probably a good thing.

I'm also okay with the idea that one can get cheap or free SNS hosting by accepting ads, as long as the nature of the ads are clear, such as how frequent they are and what kind of data is shared with which organizations. The same infrastructure (conventions) that control which people or groups can see or participate in your groups could also be used to control sharing info with advertisers, if one chooses to that route to get cheaper hosting.

Re:Time for a new standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone run one of your "standardized" social networks? Real companies run real social networks to mine data and sell advertising.
Protip: Diaspora already exists.

Re:Time for a new standard

[Tablizer]

The "losers" in the current social networking arena may support it to squash the winners.

For example, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Oracle, and IBM failed to get a foothold. If they work together on such a standard, it could shrink Facebook and Twitter, which they'd be very happy to do because they could gain much of their lost customers by hosting nodes.

Seems besides the point.

[Gravis Zero]

The fact that Facebook and other "social media" sites are hoovering up all the data they can about you seems far more concerning to me than, "oh, it's more difficult for me to give them as much information as possible!" I would feel much better if slashdot stopped covering everything these sites are doing because honestly, it doesn't matter unless they are changing what information they are extracting from their users.

Slashdot Beta

[hackwrench]

Slashdot Beta may have stopped, but its interface seems to be the default one I encounter on the rare occasion I deal with Slashdot not logged in.

Re:Slashdot Beta

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never logged into Slashdot. Never had an account. Been posting AC for a long long time.
After Beta landed on us, I kept my bookmark with the ?nobeta=1 on the end for a long time.
But when I finally dropped it, Slashdot still looked the way it did before Beta.
I haven't seen the interface you're talking about. Are you on mobile maybe?

Re:Slashdot Beta

[hackwrench]

While I am frequently on mobile, which never keeps me logged in, just now on the desktop I logged out, saw the stupid beta slider thing and logged back in.

Facebook has a messaging thing?

[ukoda]

Who cares? Facebook is a public social media site website. I use private communications programs for communicating, not a website. My preference is Signal as what I say is between myself and the recipient and I certainly don't want it passing thru a USA based company server to be dished out to third parties.

Messenger was already fundamentally ruined

[Anonymous Coward]

Messenger was already fundamentally ruined when they decided that you needed to download a completely separate app for absolutely no reason whatsoever on mobile devices.

Now I can have two applications that stay resident and suck down battery life while waiting for push notifications, with absolutely no value returned for the change. Awesome!