To those of you who are completely opposed to it and are concerned with friends of friends being able to see your Prince.org posts:


How is this new feature different than if someone copied/pasted the link to a particular Org thread and posted it on their or someone else's FB page? As far as I can tell, it's just eliminating the copy step...

Or is it going to make it easier to figure out what someone's real name is? (I don't see how that would be the case.) I've posted org threads on facebook (that I didn't even post on) so I don't understand how someone on facebook would be able to figure out that I'm "jone70". (Unless they click through my profile, read old threads, and put 2 & 2 together based on comments I've made both places.



.
[Edited 5/15/10 10:46am]

jone70 said:

Some people might not take the time to copy and paste, but if there's just a button to click, they might just do it more freely...

chocolate1 said:

See my edit above...

I appreciate the work and intent toward convenience that have gone into this, but I also do not like these changes. See Genesia and Rodeo's posts for why.

This is a TERRIBLE idea.

I vote to have this feature removed.

We need a "not like" button

jone70 said:

then why do we need them integrated, exposing more privacy concerns on the org itself, when you can just attach a link to facebook already.

errant said:

I guess I'm not understanding how adding a button here to link to Facebook is integrating it anymore than if someone were to paste a thread using the Link button on Facebook?

Don't get me wrong, I am super paranoid about my online stuff--hate having my pic posted, don't use my real name on FB and have never posted my full name/where I work, etc. here. I just don't see how this is really allowing something that wasn't already allowed before.

These 2 clips couldnt describe it any better...







.
[Edited 5/15/10 17:28pm]
[Edited 5/15/10 17:32pm]

jone70 said:

most people use their real name on facebook. most people don't use their real names on the org. if you look above at the "like" button, those are people's real names listed.

I'm not really thrilled about the idea because

1. If I wanted my thoughts on FaceBook, I'd post them there myself.

2. The Org is like OUR own little private playground and I don't like the idea of sharing my playground. with Tweeters, Buzzers nor Bookers!

HOWEVER, for those that are saying it's a matter of privacy, if you want to keep something private, do not put it on the internet, not even on here! Whatever you post on here is findable, even without the new features by anyone that wants to see it

Ben, we appreciate the effort but if you want to make our day an "ignore" button would be awesome.

errant said:

Okay...but I'm still not getting how that lets people know that "Mary Smith" = "jone70"? (Not my real name.) I haven't clicked like so I don't know what happens. Couldn't a lurker click "like" and we would know their real name, but not their org name? And if I click "like" then it shows up on my Facebook page, right? But I don't get how "Mary Smith" liking a thread on Prince.org would allow people to match that up with a specific org name.


BTW, you don't even need this feature to figure out people's real names or whom on facebook is whom on the org. I am friends with some orgers who are friends with other orgers I don't really know. I was able to figure out their Org names by their comments on FB. I guess if people really want to be anonymous, they need to either lurk/never post or never use their real name.

Yeah, I don't like this one bit, especially given some of our discussions here on sensitive subjects. But I abhor the linking of stuff everywhere nowadays anyway. I post here, not on Facebook, so I don't want my posts referenced there.

Stuff relevant to this thread is in my latest blog post: http://prince.org/blog/20...-concerns/

ben said:

thanks for the clarification, ben

johnart said:

not so long ago I separated my org facebookers from my RL ones

errant said:

Agreed.

...And I'd like the avatars to stay.

Hi, Ben.

Hershe said:

bigger avatars wouldn't bother me. the area where they show up is much wider than the current avatar width, so if the size increased to fill up that space, then fine.

but sig banners and pics are a huge turn-off for sure.

errant said:

Someone approved an avatar of a vagina...Some of them I don't want to see bigger.

florescent said:

florescent said:

Me neither

thanks Ben!

I read all the concerns and explanations.

I still think it's a bad idea and vote for it to be removed.

JustErin said:

I'm with Erin.

Genesia said:

Count me in

Genesia said:

And I'm with you two, I don't like it one bit. The end result may be the same as someone doing the cut/paste thing, but at least that's a hassle to do, instead of just one click. I wouldn't like that someone posted a discussion on there even if it was a cut/paste anyway, nor did it ever even cross my mind that people would be doing that since I don't use FB or Twitter.

Now, if someone wants to just post a news item, go for it, but the entire discussion should stay here where it belongs. I see this cramping a lot of people's desire to be involved with the site, which is a shame. So we probably won't see the likes of recording engineers, etc., dropping in to chat anymore either.

I have a feeling this isn't possible, but it would be nice if you had to 'flip a switch' in your profile to allow your posts to go on any other sites than the .org, it should be an OPT-IN choice. While I'm wishing, I'd like that switch to also include not letting Google archive posts, I long for privacy options on the sites I visit, but nowadays folks just seems to go along with the 'put crap everywhere' thing instead.
[Edited 5/17/10 7:52am]

I don't think anything should change. Ever. I fear change.

mcmeekle said:

Genesia said:

As someone who likes to read your posts, I would like to ask you to at least put a placeholder avatar back in so you're easier to spot. Thank you.

Efan said:

Let me see what I can find.