Slashdot Mirror


Facebook's Unsend Feature Will Give You 10 Minutes To Delete a Message (theverge.com)

Earlier this year, Mark Zuckerberg came under fire after he and other executives removed their Facebook messages from several recipients' inboxes. The move led many to question whether the company would give other users the option to unsend messages. According to Twitter user @MattNavarra, the answer is yes. The feature has been listed as "coming soon" in the release notes for version 191.0 of Messenger's iOS client. The Verge reports: Facebook Messenger will soon allow you to delete sent messages up to 10 minutes after you've originally sent them. Compared to the hour Facebook gives you to delete an erroneous WhatsApp message, 10 minutes doesn't give you too much time to correct yourself. But it's a lot better than having your mistakes preserved eternally.

35 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. My inbox is mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    *This* is one of the reasons they'll pry "classical" mail from my dead, cold hands.

    All those idiots pushing Discourse and whatnot. My inbox is mine, and whenever anything enters it, *I* fucking decide about its fate. No shit.

    1. Re:My inbox is mine by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      Congrats to Facebook on implementing something Gmail had 10 years ago.

    2. Re:My inbox is mine by erizon · · Score: 1

      That's something different - Gmail just pretends it has been sent it for 30s to allow you to "unsend", the feature in Whatsapp/FB is a protocol that informs clients to remove already received message.

  2. Unsend all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How good is this feature? Can you unsend everything you ever typed? Will the recipient forget reading them?

    1. Re: Unsend all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Prolly "deleted" but stores forener on a FB server somewhere

      But go ahead and think it actually gets deleted

    2. Re: Unsend all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The EU will pass a law making it illegal for you to remember any messages which you read but are then "unsent."

  3. New idea by bmimatt · · Score: 3, Funny

    How about we give FB 4 minutes to stop and think about itself?
    Should help everyone.

  4. General solution: Future delivery by shanen · · Score: 1

    Still can't tell why no one implements a proper email system with an understanding of time. In such a system, this feature would be easily implemented with a default actual delivery time of 10 minutes after the Send button, but until the actual delivery you could cancel the send. If 10 minutes isn't right for you, then you could set it for any other time you want.

    In my own case, I would probably prefer an hour for non-urgent email. Too many times that I've had second thoughts. Plus, I think it's actually a benefit to send less email to people. If there's an urgent email option, then the send would both mark the subject with an urgent flag and send it immediately even if my default delay was longer.

    The same approach to email could apply to scheduling email that doesn't need to go out for several days. I could compose an immediate reply, and schedule it for future delivery. I would probably want a reminder a day before the actual delivery just in case I had additional thoughts. Again, that is something that often happens.

    By the way, I was actually joking when I said I can't tell why. I think the why is that very few people think in terms of time over money. Everything looks different after you understand how important time is relative to everything else. And that's enough time for this topic for now, but I bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:General solution: Future delivery by butzwonker · · Score: 2

      How about waiting an hour instead of sending it immediately? You're an adult, aren't you?

      Your feature reminds me of that startup company that wants to monetize a single function they deliver, that your mail is only checked and forwarded to you three times a day.

    2. Re:General solution: Future delivery by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      There is exactly no reason though to do that at the messaging layer. (well there is one reason and I'll get to that) If you want that behavior the place to implement it is the client. After all if you want to 'rethink and recall' a message the best value there is for it to have never left your control. You most likely don't just not want the recipient seeing it but ideally you don't want anyone seeing it. After all if it goes to some server somewhere it could be the subject of discovery etc. Example maybe you write that poison pen letter to a colleague and decide that perhaps it was a little over the top and might be considered harassment. You cancel the message. if its sitting on the server somewhere and you do something else in the future; I can't see why it might not show up in discovery. In which case it could be used against you. No its better for you if that message stays on your equipment until its transmitted or destroyed.

      So why do it server side? - Only legitimate reason I can think of is because everything has to be a s***y web application today, where the client state gets mostly blown away unless you keep the browser open. Yes there is HTML5 storage but literally nothing uses it.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:General solution: Future delivery by shanen · · Score: 1

      It's really rather difficult to interpret your questions and comments in any constructive way. Therefore I will only respond in a fuzzy general way.

      Different people like to work in different ways. Therefore I think it is better to give them general tools that are (1) easy to use and (2) that allow them to work the way they prefer.

      From the attitude of your question and your handle, you might be a fan of Google Plus or have some other involvement with it. I think the failure of that fundamentally good idea was largely due to violations of those two principles for good tool design. The google has become too fond of monolithic one-right-way thinking. (I would go even farther and say that's part of the growing evil that the google has become.)

      So what is wrong with allowing people to do things their own way?

      The answer from the perspective of such corporate cancers as Facebook and the google is that it is wrong because it fails to maximize profits to the highest degree possible. Whatever way is the most profitable is the only way that should be supported and investing in any other ways only increase the costs and reduce the profits. (Yes, that is actually a rather gross simplification, but I've already invested much more time than your nonconstructive response deserves.)

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    4. Re:General solution: Future delivery by shanen · · Score: 1

      There are a couple of good ideas in your email, but mostly a bunch of negative attitude, confusion, and conflation of the actual issues at hand. Or maybe you just prefer quibbling over low-level details or can't generalize to a higher level? Whatever. In conjunction with your sig, I conclude that constructive conversation is too unlikely. Therefore my response is:

      Ask again later. And more politely.

      Perhaps we can have a polite discussion of the sort that is so rare on today's Slashdot However I'm inclined to doubt it.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  5. Funnily enough... by wiretrip · · Score: 1

    I was just thinking the other day that this feature should be part of the SMTP standard, or at least most email clients!

    1. Re:Funnily enough... by aglider · · Score: 2

      GMail has it. Within 10 or 30 seconds...

      --
      Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  6. having your mistakes preserved eternally by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

    Like the edit feature on Slashdot?

  7. More and more "wrong messages" will be sent by aglider · · Score: 3, Interesting

    People is already sending messages without reading and thinking.
    This "feature" will give users a false perception and they will rely on it to be more and more careless.
    There's no message sent by error. They are all sent by carelessness.

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:More and more "wrong messages" will be sent by aglider · · Score: 2

      > Not *all*. Because windows allows focus stealing

      In this case you carelessly chose the OS. :-P

      --
      Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  8. Slashdot? We need unsend, unwrite and unread. by aglider · · Score: 1

    Why hasn't slashdot the ability to unsend or unwrite my own post?
    I also need to add "unread", so I can forse users to forget what they already read.
    I need those now!

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re: Slashdot? We need unsend, unwrite and unread. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We will all promise to forget the writing we didnt agree with :)

  9. better? by sad_ · · Score: 1

    "But it's a lot better than having your mistakes preserved eternally."

    you mean it's not being displayed, because it will be preserved on facebook servers eternally. just like all the facebook sttaus updates you make, but then cancel, are also stored in your profile (but not displayed).

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  10. ff by AndyKron · · Score: 1, Troll

    Fuck Facebook and whatever it does.

  11. I'm gonna just call "Shenanigans" now... by Timothy2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "10 minutes doesn't give you too much time to correct yourself. But it's a lot better than having your mistakes preserved eternally."

    You can bet your ass they'll be preserved eternally, they may just not be *public*.

    1. Re:I'm gonna just call "Shenanigans" now... by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      You can bet your ass they'll be preserved eternally, they may just not be *public*.

      I'd actually say that "may" was the operative word here. Sure, *you* might have 10 minutes to retract a message, but that also means a 10 minute window of opportunity for someone to take a screencap for posterity, repost it, tell HR to put your temination notice in the post, etc. If you've got a high-profile with a lot of followers and especially foes that's going to be more than long enough.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  12. People use Facebook? by aliquis · · Score: 1

    (I'm perm-banned on two accounts.)

    1. Re:People use Facebook? by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

      How did you manage that? I'm somtimes a bit quick on the post button but have not been banned by fb yet.

  13. 1990 called by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    The old MSMail had this on NT server. You could unsend an unread message, but not if it was read. Seemed to work fine.

    This needs a centralized sever to work well but that's what FB has.

    It's harder with federation like SMTP. I seem to recall Usenet had a cancel-message format. Like return-receipt, doing this on SMTP would be up to the client to honor, but that would have been better than all the "ignore my last message, this one is corrected" messages all the time. Heck, there must be a dusty RFC on this.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:1990 called by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      The old MSMail had this on NT server. You could unsend an unread message, but not if it was read. Seemed to work fine.

      Long ago I was advised that my email tone was typically...abrasive, let's say. Over the years as I have made an effort to work better with people, I have observed two fundamental rules that I think "simulate" the feature you describe:

      1. As my hand hovers, ready to hit the "send" button, I stop myself and re-read the entire message start to finish, slowly.

      2. If I am mad, upset, etc. I either delete the message or move it to drafts and return to it later (making sure to repeat the process starting with rule 1). If I am level-headed and the message has no errors (errors include things that will hurt someone's feelings unnecessarily, inflammatory words, etc.), and I am comfortable pressing send at that moment, then I press send.

      I actually even apply that strategy here on Slashdot. I write more comments than what my comment history shows. Many times, I will write a scathing reply to someone here on Slashdot, just to get it out of my system, then close the tab without actually posting the message. Of course, sometimes I still can't help but post something that I know will be inflammatory; but that's why we all come to Slashdot. Right?

      Writing messages that you never send is therapeutic without spreading negativity. It lets you get the emotions out of your system. For me it works well enough that sometimes I write one message saying exactly what I think with no regard for the impact of my words, instead focusing on getting my feelings out. Then when I delete it and start over I am much more moderate in what I write.

      Everybody should try it.

      I used to pride in speaking my mind without any output filter. I have grown up and realized that is not always the best or most productive approach.

  14. Troll heaven by clawsoon · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a good tool for trolls. Send harassing message; delete; repeat. I'm waiting for the story where someone sends 10,378 messages to their ex over the course of a day, deleting them all, forgetting that there's such a thing as screenshots.

    1. Re:Troll heaven by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      My guess would be that it work like marking an FB post private does. You can do it; but it will still display to somoene they have already displayed it to

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:Troll heaven by clawsoon · · Score: 1

      You mean I was wrong? Dammit... delete comment! Delete comment!

  15. Whitewash by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

    Zuckerberg came under fire after he and other executives removed their Facebook messages from several recipients' inboxes. The move led many to question whether the company would give other users the option to unsend messages.

    Framing this as user envy (of the ability to delete messages) is a red herring. Zuck deleting messages was wrong because it's a coverup. Even if every user had had the ability to delete messages, executive communications should be held to a higher standard; in the world of governance, silent unannounced redactions are for weasles and crooks.

    10 minutes doesn't give you too much time to correct yourself. But it's a lot better than having your mistakes preserved eternally.

    Bad phrasing. Your mistakes are still preserved eternally, just after a 10 minute delay. This mea culpa from Facebook is a weak token gesture, which still doesn't give users the same powers the execs exercised, while attempting to make people think that the original execs act is now whitewashed.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  16. Know what's even better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Deleting Facebook.

  17. Sober Up Quick by Only+Time+Will+Tell · · Score: 1

    So you have 10 minutes to sober up and realize that late night message to your ex was a mistake!

  18. so presumably by rossdee · · Score: 2

    then the message won't reach the recipient for 10 minutes at least.

    or have they actually invented a time maxhine

    cue Cher: If I could turn back time

  19. Still eternally preserved by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

    But it's a lot better than having your mistakes preserved eternally.

    Unless it's in the TOS, you should have no expectation whatsoever that your "deleted" messages are NOT preserved eternally. Don't kid yourself. Facebook keeps everything, Facebook sells everything. They long ago redefined the word "delete" to mean "do not show to end-user".

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.