MG Siegler at TechCrunch to write for the 2009 year. It covers web, mobile, social, big companies, small companies, almost all. And Apple. A lot. Prior to TechCrunch it covers different technologies beats for VentureBeat. Originally from Ohio, mg attended the University of Michigan. He previously lived in Los Angeles, where he worked in Hollywood and in San Diego where ... ? Read More
I was impressed with Facebook's privacy update ads today. Finally, after many years of menu – and filled with menus – and filled with a menu filled with drop-down menus — we get a simple, direct privacy settings directly on the page. I'm sure some people will still bitch and moan because well, it's Facebook. But at least at first glance, these changes look good.
The changes also tie into something I've been thinking about for a long time — this is an issue that has become a red-hot again thanks to Google + and his circles concept: a simple social access. Today's Facebook changes whittled six sharing settings for up to three. Indeed, there are only two that actually this question: "the public" and "friends".
When you share things on Facebook, you have the opportunity to share with "Each", "friends of friends and networks", "Friends and networks", "friends of friends", "friends" or custom groups. Read the list again. It's funny. And it is actually still on the ground right now (new changes have not yet deployed just yet).
Again, these options were reduced to "Public" or "friends". A million times better. And more or less exactly what I have been asking over the last few years.
Yes, on the surface of the joint control are less granular. However, the "Custom" for experienced users. In their posts on the subject of Facebook also implies enhanced sharing options and possibly adding other groups or lists that you create over time. For most users, I hope they won't do it. Again, the "Public" and "friends" are all that matter.
Now, when we exit the loop based advertising Google +, and we begin to see if the service would actually be useful, the realization about the circles appear in circles, like all the lists are a pain in the ass to maintain. Of course Google perfected a way to get users to create these lists. But these people once they are there just not what people are going to do.
"But but but will differ from Google +!" No it isn't.
And I will be another step forward. I'd bet that because Google + will force users to put people in at least one lifebuoy, ultimately, most users simply add all they want to follow in this: one lap. A smaller set will create two circles: "friends" and "family". Even small subset will create circles for their colleagues. And here it is. This is the stark reality create lists online.
It's too bad, because lists when you take the time to create and maintain them, are very useful. That is why everyone, Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. — tried to solve this problem. But I think that all plans were too ambitious. Most lists ephemeral. That's why they actually work well on mobile with services like conversation group. And I would bet that we'll see a lot of startups to spring up around the idea of creating a group on the fly based on location.
But at a higher level of these massive social network, you need to keep it simple for the vast majority of users. One list: "friends".
This is what Facebook just essentially done. While they give you two sharing options (again, not including the "Custom"), "Public" is actually a list, not at all. It's all there in the world, potentially. Only the actual list of "friends" and this is a list, which has always been a fundamental part of Facebook. You don't need to go out of your way to make this list, how does Facebook. If you accept or extend the connection, these people are your "friends".
Google + received each all excited again on the detailed control. But there's a reason why stores if you do not have idea, and I don't believe that this is simply a design challenge.
This is the point where some people will get upset and say that I have lost contact with reality in San Francisco hipster bubble. "How dare you tell me I shouldn't share personal moments with my family!" I'm not saying that. That is why all of these services have — and will continue to be — user sharing options. I'm just saying that the way I see it plays — path lists the scale is giving most of the users of one list. And, with the rest of the public.
Facebook's new system is not perfect. Still love seeing them more directly to the implementation of the concept of "follower". That is, someone who is not your "friend", but wants to follow along with public stuff you post. This is the sort of exists, when you ignore friend requests (or fan pages), but it's still not ideal. It should be much more clearly at both ends. In the end, it should be considered in one way or another — "public Exchange" does not make a ton of sense without it.
Just about everything that I share to Facebook, Twitter, and now Google + public, I definitely see the need for more selective Exchange. I think we should be realistic about how it can and will be done. For most people, this will be one list. "Friends".
Facebook is the largest social network, with more than 500 million users. Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook in February 2004, originally as an exclusive network for students at Harvard University. She ...
Read More
View the original article here
Read More
Learn more 
Learn more 
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More
Read More